Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PODRUGINA AND YEDINOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 20887/03

  KOT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 39654/07

  Departures from that principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, § 24, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03

  DOVGUCHITS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 39654/07

  The Court has found a violation of an applicant's "right to a court" guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in many cases in which a judicial decision that had become final and binding was subsequently quashed by a higher court with a view to carrying out a fresh examination (see Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, §§ 26-31, 7 June 2007; Kudrina v. Russia, no. 27790/03, §§ 15-20, 21 June 2007; Sidorenko v. Russia, no. 3519/05, §§ 12-19, 26 July 2007; and Kot, cited above, §§ 23-30).
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 13151/04

  PROTSENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 39654/07

  The Court considers that the circumstance referred to was by its nature and significance such as to justify the quashing of the final judgment and that this was not inconsistent with the principle of legal certainty (see Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 26, 14 February 2008, and Protsenko v. Russia, no. 13151/04, §§ 30-34, 31 July 2008).

• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69582/01

  SARDINE c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 39654/07

  In so far as both applicants complained of the quashing of the judgment of 1 July 1998 by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Kareliya Republic on 22 May 2002, their complaint was submitted out of time (see Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no. 69582/01, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 36495/02

  KURINNYY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 39654/07

  Having regard to its case-law, the Court has to assess in the present case whether the quashing of the final judgment in the second applicant's favour by way of supervisory review was justified by the circumstances and whether a fair balance was struck between the interests of the applicant and the need to ensure the proper administration of justice, which includes the importance of observing the principle of legal certainty and the res judicata effect of the final judgment (cf. Kurinnyy v. Russia, no. 36495/02, §§ 13, 27-28, 12 June 2008).
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 3519/05

  SIDORENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 39654/07

  The Court has found a violation of an applicant's "right to a court" guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in many cases in which a judicial decision that had become final and binding was subsequently quashed by a higher court with a view to carrying out a fresh examination (see Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, §§ 26-31, 7 June 2007; Kudrina v. Russia, no. 27790/03, §§ 15-20, 21 June 2007; Sidorenko v. Russia, no. 3519/05, §§ 12-19, 26 July 2007; and Kot, cited above, §§ 23-30).
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 27790/03

  KUDRINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 39654/07

  The Court has found a violation of an applicant's "right to a court" guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in many cases in which a judicial decision that had become final and binding was subsequently quashed by a higher court with a view to carrying out a fresh examination (see Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, §§ 26-31, 7 June 2007; Kudrina v. Russia, no. 27790/03, §§ 15-20, 21 June 2007; Sidorenko v. Russia, no. 3519/05, §§ 12-19, 26 July 2007; and Kot, cited above, §§ 23-30).
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 30422/03

  PSHENICHNYY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 39654/07

  The Court considers that the circumstance referred to was by its nature and significance such as to justify the quashing of the final judgment and that this was not inconsistent with the principle of legal certainty (see Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 26, 14 February 2008, and Protsenko v. Russia, no. 13151/04, §§ 30-34, 31 July 2008).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 8549/06

  [ENG]

  In these circumstances, the Court is not convinced that the respondent authority was genuinely unaware of the proceedings before the first instance court (see, by contrast, Podrugina and Yedinov v. Russia (dec.), no. 39654/07, 17 February 2009).
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 33636/09

  [ENG]

  À ce titre, elle relève que, en vertu du code civil russe, les requérants ne peuvent pas être tenus de restituer les sommes déjà perçues en exécution des décisions annulées (voir, dans le contexte similaire de l'annulation de décisions de justice définitives par la voie du contrôle en révision, Podrougina et Yedinov c. Russie (déc.), no 39654/07, 17 février 2009).
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 26704/02

  LYAKHEVICH v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that such a redress was sufficient and adequate, having the effect of rendering the applicant "no longer a victim" of the alleged violation (see, mutatis mutandis, Babunidze, cited above, with further references, and Podrugina and Yedinov v. Russia (dec.), no. 39654/07, 17 February 2009).

• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 8602/09

  S.C. BRITANIC WORLD S.R.L. c. ROUMANIE

  Une telle pratique ne pose pas en soi un problème au regard de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (Protsenko c. Russie, no 13151/04, §§ 30-34, 31 juillet 2008, et Podrugina et Yedinov c. Russie (déc.), no 39654/07, 17 février 2009).
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 50249/13

  GURMA v. ALBANIA

  It therefore did not contradict the ad personam aspect of the principle of respect for the res judicata effect of judgments (compare Podrugina and Yedinov. v. Russia (dec.), no. 39654/07, 17 February 2009; Tantilovi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 39351/05, § 36, 13 January 2015; and Guriţanu v. Moldova (dec.) [Committee], no. 75732/12, § 21, 8 November 2022).
• EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 57019/08

  PEGOV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Quant au grief des requérants formulé sur le terrain de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention, la Cour note que les requérants n'ont pas été, et ne peuvent pas être, requis en vertu de la législation russe de restituer les sommes déjà perçues en exécution des arrêts du 4 octobre 2006 et du 28 avril 2006, tel que confirmé en appel le 31 mai 2006 (voir Kourinny, précitée, §§ 37 et 38 et Podrougina et Yedinov c. Russie (déc.), no 39654/07, 17 février 2009).
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 8727/03

  STANCA POPESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Par conséquent, la Cour ne décèle en l'espèce aucune circonstance substantielle et impérieuse de nature à justifier la réouverture de la procédure (voir a contrario Protsenko c. Russie, no 13151/04, §§ 30-34, 31 juillet 2008 ; Podrugina et Yedinov c. Russie (déc.), no 39654/07, 17 février 2009).
• EGMR, 25.03.2025 - 47858/17

  DUHANXHIU v. ALBANIA

  It therefore did not contradict the ad personam aspect of the principle of respect for the res judicata effect of judgments (compare Podrugina and Yedinov. v. Russia (dec.), no. 39654/07, 17 February 2009; Guriţanu v. Moldova (dec.) [Committee], no. 75732/12, § 21, 8 November 2022; and Gurma v. Albania (dec.) [Committee], no. 50249/13, § 14, 28 November 2022).
• EGMR, 09.06.2020 - 2606/11

  BOLKARAYEV v. RUSSIA

  If there is no such remedy against a particular act that is alleged to be in breach of the Convention, the six-month period is normally calculated with reference to the date on which that act takes place (see, for instance, Podrugina and Yedinov (dec.), no. 39654/07, 17 February 2009).
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 37285/12

  KHUBIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Although this judgment was subsequently quashed, the Court observes that under the Russian Civil Code the applicant cannot be required to repay the sums already received (see, in the similar context of the annulment of final judgment, Podrougina and Yedinov v. Russia (dec.), no. 39654/07, 17 February 2009).
• EGMR, 04.09.2012 - 36458/03

  [FRE]