Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PLOTNIKOVY v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 43883/02

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 43883/02

  The Court further recalls that the domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 43883/02

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 43883/02

  The Court reiterates that a "claim" can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Burdov v. Russia, cited above, § 40, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 84, § 59).

• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 18896/05

  OSMAN YILMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Eu égard à la conclusion à laquelle elle est parvenue dans la présente affaire, et sans préjudice des autres mesures envisageables en vue de l'amélioration du régime actuel d'exécution des jugements, la Cour considère que le redressement le plus adéquat consisterait à mettre un terme à la situation de non-exécution critiquée (voir, entre autres, Plotnikovy c. Russie, no 43883/02, § 33, 24 février 2005).
• EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 2746/05

  KOPNIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In this regard, the Court reiterates that it is not open to a State authority to cite a lack of funds or other resources, such as housing, as an excuse for not honoring a judgment debt (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 35, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts), and Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 23, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 2701/04

  KOZODOYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes that it has on many occasions rejected arguments similar to the ones raised by the Government in the present case (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia (dec.), no. 59498/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Akashev v. Russia, no. 30616/05, §§ 22-23, 12 June 2008; Nazarchuk v. Ukraine, no. 9670/02, § 20, 19 April 2005; Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 16, 24 February 2005).

 
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 64215/01

  DE TRANA c. ITALIE

  Compte tenu des éléments en sa possession, la Cour considère que la façon la plus appropriée de redresser les violations constatées en l'espèce est de mettre aussitôt terme à la situation de non-exécution (voir, Plotnikovy c. Russie, no 43883/02, § 33, 24 février 2005 ; Apostol c. Géorgie, no 40765/02, §§ 71-73, CEDH 2006-...).
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 35259/04

  KUKSA v. RUSSIA

  However, the Court reiterates that it is not open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds or other resources, such as housing, as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 35, 16 June 2005; Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 23, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 27023/06

  SEVGÜL ALTIPARMAK c. TURQUIE

  Partant, eu égard à la conclusion à laquelle elle est parvenue dans la présente affaire, et sans préjudice des autres mesures envisageables en vue de l'amélioration du régime actuel d'exécution des jugements, la Cour considère que le redressement le plus adéquat consisterait à mettre un terme à la situation de non-exécution critiquée (voir, entre autres, Plotnikovy c. Russie, no 43883/02, § 33, 24 février 2005, et Osman Yılmaz, précité, § 51).
• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 13979/03

  SLADKOV v. RUSSIA

  This new judgment would not bring the applicant closer to his goal, that is the actual enforcement (see JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 41510/98, 24 October 2000; Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 16, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 13910/04

  TARASOV v. RUSSIA

  However, the Court reiterates that it is not open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds or other resources, such as housing, as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 35, 16 June 2005; Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 23, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 08.12.2005 - 7363/04

  MIKRYUKOV v. RUSSIA

  However, the Court reiterates that it is not open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds or other resources, such as housing, as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 35, 16 June 2005; Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 23, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 23490/03

  KOSTENKO v. RUSSIA

  However, the Court reiterates that it is not open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds or other resources, as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 23, 24 February 2005, and Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 35, 16 June 2005).