Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SYPCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6 Violation of P1-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 50178/99

  NIKITINE c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 38368/04

  The Court has to assess whether the power to conduct a supervisory review was exercised by the authorities so as to strike, to the maximum extent possible, a fair balance between the interests of the individual and the need to ensure the proper administration of justice (see, among other authorities, Nikitin v. Russia, no. 50178/99, §§ 57-59, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 15021/02

  WASSERMAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 38368/04

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see, e.g., Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; and, more recently, Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005; Wasserman v. Russia (no. 1), no. 15021/02, 18 November 2004).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 25964/02

  POZNAKHIRINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 38368/04

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see, e.g., Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; and, more recently, Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005; Wasserman v. Russia (no. 1), no. 15021/02, 18 November 2004).

• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05

  GERASIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, the applicants received, by virtue of the judgments in their favour, a "legitimate expectation" to acquire a pecuniary asset, which was sufficiently established to constitute a "possession" falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, §§ 45-50, 30 June 2005; Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 46, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts); Kukalo v. Russia, no. 63995/00, § 61, 3 November 2005; and Sypchenko v. Russia, no. 38368/04, § 45, 1 March 2007).
• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 10985/02

  YERLIKAYA c. TURQUIE

  En ce qui concerne les griefs des requérants quant à la violation alléguée de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention et de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1, en raison de la non-exécution des jugements définitifs en question, la Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà considéré que le défaut des autorités de se conformer, dans un délai raisonnable, à une décision définitive peut entraîner une violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention et de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1, surtout quand l'obligation d'exécuter la décision en cause appartient à une autorité administrative, comme c'est le cas en l'espèce (voir, par exemple, Bourdov c. Russie, no 59498/00, CEDH 2002-III, Romachov c. Ukraine, no 67534/01, 27 juillet 2004, Tacea c. Roumanie, précité, Tunç c. Turquie, no 54040/00, 24 mai 2005, et Kuzu c. Turquie, no 13062/03, 17 janvier 2006 ; et, plus récemment, Sipchenko c. Russie, no 38368/04, 1er mars 2007).
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 26338/06

  MURTAZIN v. RUSSIA

  Departures from that principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see (see, mutatis mutandis, Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-X; and Sypchenko v. Russia, no. 38368/04, § 26, 1 June 2007).