Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OOO LINK OIL SPB v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 42600/05

  The applicant company supports its complaints by reference to the Court's case-law finding violations of the above provisions on account of quashing of binding and enforceable judgments by way of supervisory review in Russia and Ukraine (Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, ECHR 2003-IX; Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, ECHR 2002-VII).

  A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character, such as correction of fundamental defects or miscarriage of justice (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII; Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 51-52, ECHR 2003-IX).

• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 6778/05

  MPP GOLUB c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 42600/05

  As a result, the procedure followed in the present case was not incompatible with the principle of legal certainty enshrined in the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6778/05, ECHR 2005-XI).
• EGMR, 04.09.2003 - 13338/03

  AO

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 42600/05

  In the Court's view, the supervisory review so construed appears as an ultimate element in the chain of domestic remedies at the disposal of the parties rather than an extraordinary means for reopening of judicial proceedings in a case (compare AO "Uralmash" (dec.), no. 13338/03, 10 April 2003).

• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 26374/18

  GUÐMUNDUR ANDRI ÁSTRÁÐSSON c. ISLANDE

  According to the Court's settled case-law, while the requirements of the principle of legal certainty, and the force of res judicata, are not absolute (see, for an example in the criminal-law sphere, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 62, 11 July 2017), a departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character, such as the correction of fundamental defects or a miscarriage of justice (see, for instance, Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX, and OOO Link Oil SPB v. Russia (dec.), no. 42600/05, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  WALESA v. POLAND

  While the requirements of the principle of legal certainty, and the force of res judicata, are not absolute (see, for an example in the criminal-law sphere, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 62, 11 July 2017), a departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character, such as the correction of fundamental defects or a miscarriage of justice (see, for instance, Ryabykh, § 52, cited above, and OOO Link Oil SPB v. Russia (dec.), no. 42600/05, 25 June 2009).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.09.2023 - C-582/21

  Profi Credit Polska (Réouverture de la procédure terminée par une décision …

  15 EGMR, 25. Juni 2009, 000 LINK OIL SPB/Russland, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0625DEC004260005 (im Folgenden: EGMR, Urteil Link Oil; der Text enthält keine Randnummerierung).

 
• EGMR, 12.07.2022 - 35802/16

  KRIVTSOVA c. RUSSIE

  « Selon la jurisprudence constante de la Cour, si les exigences qui découlent du principe de la sécurité juridique et de l'autorité de la chose jugée ne sont pas absolues (voir, pour un exemple tiré du domaine du droit pénal, Moreira Ferreira c. Portugal (no 2) [GC], no 19867/12, § 62, 11 juillet 2017), il ne peut être dérogé à ce principe que lorsque des motifs substantiels et impérieux l'imposent, par exemple la rectification d'un vice fondamental ou d'une erreur judiciaire (voir, par exemple, Riabykh c. Russie, no 52854/99, § 52, CEDH 2003-IX, et OOO Link Oil SPB c. Russie (déc.), no 42600/05, 25 juin 2009)'(Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson c. Islande, précité, § 238).
• EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 2607/14

  ZAO TD SETUNSKAYA c. RUSSIE

  Appréciation de la Cour Sur le respect du délai de six mois 51. La Cour rappelle qu'elle a qualifié la procédure commerciale de contrôle en révision de voie de recours effective au sens de l'article 35 de la Convention (Kovaleva et autres c. Russie (déc.), no 6025/09, 25 juin 2009, et OOO LINK OIL SPB c. Russie (déc.), no 42600/05, 25 juin 2009).
• EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 10114/06

  OOO KHABAROVSKAYA TOPLIVNAYA KOMPANIYA c. RUSSIE

  D'un autre côté, la Cour ne perd pas de vue qu'elle a qualifié le recours en révision en matière commerciale existant avant le 1er janvier 2003 de voie de recours extraordinaire qui ne comptait pas aux fins d'épuisement des voies internes (AO Uralmash c. Russie (déc.), no 13338/03, 10 avril 2003), et que ce n'est qu'en 2009 qu'elle a qualifié la nouvelle procédure commerciale de contrôle en révision de voie de recours effective au sens de l'article 35 de la Convention (Kovaleva et autres, décision précitée, et OOO LINK OIL SPB c. Russie (déc.), no 42600/05, 25 juin 2009).
• EGMR - 15058/08 (anhängig)

  KOZLOV v. RUSSIA

  Was there a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the quashing of the judgment of 29 June 2007 by way of supervisory review (see, for comparison, Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 51-59, ECHR 2003-IX; Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, § 24, 18 January 2007; Eduard Chistyakov v. Russia, no. 15336/02, §§ 22-28, 9 April 2009; and OOO Link Oil SPB v. Russia (dec.), no. 42600/05, 25 June 2009)? Was this judgment final, meaning that it acquired the force of res judicata, i.e. it became irrevocable, so that no further ordinary remedies were available or when the parties exhausted such remedies or permitted the time-limit to expire without availing themselves of them (see Nikitin v. Russia, no. 50178/99, §§ 37-39, ECHR 2004-VIII)? When assessing compliance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, does it matter that the supervisory court's substitution of the legal ground for discontinuation of the proceedings deprived the applicant of a legal possibility to claim compensation for wrongful prosecution?.