Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SITKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 on account of the quashing of the judgment Violation of P1-1 in respect of the same fact Not necessary to examine the complaint about the length of the civil proceedings Not necessary to examine the complaint about the alleged lack of domestic ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 55531/00
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 55531/00

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 55531/00

  The Court has to establish, first, whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicant were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, § 220).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 55531/00

  For relevant details concerning the supervisory review proceedings see the Ryabykh v. Russia judgment (no. 52854/99, 24 July 2003, §§ 31-40).
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 07.10.2005 - 18/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 55531/00

  18/04/2007.
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69582/01

  SARDINE c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 55531/00

  The Court reiterates that in the circumstances the main factor which contributed to the overall length of the proceedings against the Bailiff Service was the decision of the supervisory review instance, which was not susceptible to any ordinary appeal (see above; see also in this respect Sardin v. Russia, (dec.), no. 69582/01, 12 February 2004).
• EGMR, 02.11.2004 - 61333/00

  TREGUBENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 55531/00

  In the case Tregubenko v. Ukraine (no. 61333/00, § 46 et seq., 2 November 2004) the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention in that the quashing of a final judgment of pecuniary nature in the applicant's favour constituted a disproportionate interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 17353/03

  NAYDENOV c. BULGARIE

  Eu égard au constat relatif à l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (paragraphe 85 ci-dessus) et au fait que le grief tiré de l'article 6 concerne les mêmes faits, la Cour estime qu'il convient de déclarer ce-dernier recevable, mais qu'il n'y a pas lieu d'examiner séparément s'il y a eu, en l'espèce, violation de l'article 6 de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis, Sitkov c. Russie, no 55531/00, § 38, 18 janvier 2007).
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 31799/08

  [ENG]

  However, having found above that the supervisory review breached the applicants' substantive rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint about the absence of effective remedies with regard to the proceedings engendered by that supervisory review (see Sitkov v. Russia, no. 55531/00, § 39, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 18967/03

  MUTISHEV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  En conséquence, eu égard au constat relatif à l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (paragraphes 145 et 146 ci-dessus), la Cour estime qu'il n'y a pas lieu d'examiner s'il y a eu, en l'espèce, violation de cette disposition (voir, mutatis mutandis, Sitkov c. Russie, no 55531/00, § 38, 18 janvier 2007).

• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 2202/05

  TISHKEVICH v. RUSSIA

  Indeed, it may be regarded as akin to misevaluation of evidence or misinterpretation of law, both of which the Court has earlier found not to disclose fundamental defects (see, for example, Sitkov v. Russia, no. 55531/00, § 32, 18 January 2007; Boris Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 30671/03, § 34, 15 February 2007).
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 3447/06

  [ENG]

  However, having found above that the supervisory review breached the applicant's substantive rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint about the absence of effective remedies with regard to the proceedings begot by that supervisory review (see Sitkov v. Russia, no. 55531/00, § 39, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 15890/04

  VIKTOR PETROV v. RUSSIA

  However, having found above that the supervisory review breached the applicant's substantive rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint about the absence of effective remedies with regard to the proceedings begot by that supervisory review (see Sitkov v. Russia, no. 55531/00, § 39, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 22603/02

  UKRAINE-TYUMEN v. UKRAINE

  In view of the foregoing, the Court does not find relevant to the present case the approach based on the total elimination of the consequences of the impugned interference, which it would normally apply in determining compensation for pecuniary damage in cases of res judicata (see, for example, Timotiyevich, cited above, § 45; Kondrashova v. Russia, no. 75473/01, § 36, 16 November 2006; and Sitkov v. Russia, no. 55531/00, §§ 49-52, 18 January 2007).