Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NAGOVITSYN AND NALGIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (55)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 27451/09

  The Court therefore concludes, as it has repeatedly done in previous cases, that the States can choose to introduce only a compensatory remedy in respect of the non-enforcement of judgments without that remedy being regarded as ineffective (see, mutatis mutandis, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII; Scordino (no. 1), cited above, § 187, and Burdov (no. 2), cited above, § 99).
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 50425/99

  E.G. c. POLOGNE ET 175 AUTRES AFFAIRES DE LA RIVIÈRE BOUG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 27451/09

  The Court reiterates that its task, as defined by Article 19, would not be best achieved by taking such cases to judgment in the place of domestic courts, let alone considering them in parallel with the domestic proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, E.G. v. Poland (dec.), no. 50425/99, § 27, 23 September 2008, and Burdov (no. 2), cited above, § 127).
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

  ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 27451/09

  57984/00 et al., ECHR 2002-IX; Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, §§ 41-43, 1 March 2005; and Korenjak v. Slovenia, no. 463/03, §§ 63-71, 15 May 2007).

• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 24549/03

  MICHALAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 27451/09

  57984/00 et al., ECHR 2002-IX; Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, §§ 41-43, 1 March 2005; and Korenjak v. Slovenia, no. 463/03, §§ 63-71, 15 May 2007).
• EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 21071/05

  WASSERMAN v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 27451/09

  The Convention requirements in this regard are well established in the Court's case-law (see Scordino (no. 1), cited above, §§ 195-207; Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, §§ 49-50, 10 April 2008, and Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 99-100).
• EGMR, 15.05.2007 - 463/03

  KORENJAK v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 27451/09

  57984/00 et al., ECHR 2002-IX; Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, §§ 41-43, 1 March 2005; and Korenjak v. Slovenia, no. 463/03, §§ 63-71, 15 May 2007).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 27451/09

  (see, among many other authorities, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 65, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 27451/09

  46113/99 et al., § 69, ECHR 2010-...):.
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 27451/09

  However, this rule is subject to exceptions, which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, 22 May 2001, and Brusco, cited above).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 27451/09

  In addition, according to the "generally recognised principles of international law", there may be special circumstances which absolve the applicant from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies at his disposal (see Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 36, Series A no. 40, A, and Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 67).
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

  NOGOLICA c. CROATIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  27451/09 and 60650/09, § 40, 23 September 2010).
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 52070/08

  [ENG]

  Among such exceptions there certainly are situations where, following a pilot judgment on the merits in which the Court has found a systemic violation of the Convention, the respondent State makes available a remedy to redress at domestic level grievances of similarly situated persons (see Demopoulos and Others §§ 87-88; Broniowski v. Poland (merits) [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 191-193, ECHR 2004-V; and Nagovitsyn v. Russia no. 27451/09 and Nalgiyev v. Russia (no. 60650/09) (dec.), 23 September 2010, §§ 25-26 and 33-44).
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 49169/09

  STELLA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Parmi ces exceptions, il y a sans doute les situations dans lesquelles, à la suite d'un arrêt pilote dans lequel la Cour a constaté une violation systémique de la Convention, l'État a instauré une voie de recours pour redresser au niveau national les griefs soulevés dans les requêtes pendantes devant elle concernant des problèmes similaires (Łatak c. Pologne (déc.), no 52070/08, § 79, 13 octobre 2010 ; voir aussi Demopoulos et autres, précité, §§ 87-88 ; Broniowski c. Pologne [GC], no 31443/96, §§ 191-193, CEDH 2004-V, et Nagovitsyn et Nalgiyev c. Russie (déc.), nos 27451/09 et 60650/09, §§ 25-26 et 33-44, 23 septembre 2010).

• EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 9584/02

  [ENG]

  En particulier, la Cour rappelle s'être écartée de ce principe général dans des affaires examinées à la suite d'un arrêt de principe ou d'un arrêt pilote, par exemple dans des affaires dirigées contre l'Italie, la Pologne, la Russie et la Grèce concernant des voies de recours visant la durée de procédure (Brusco c. Italie (déc.), no 69789/01, CEDH 2001-IX, Charzynski c. Pologne (déc.), no 15212/03, CEDH 2005-V, Nagovitsyn et Nalgiyev c. Russie (déc.), nos 27451/09 et 60650/09, 23 septembre 2010, et Techniki Olympiaki A.E. c. Grèce (déc.), no 40547/10, 1er octobre 2013), dans une affaire dirigée contre la Moldova (Balan c. Moldova (déc.), no 44746/08, 24 janvier 2012) concernant un nouveau recours visant l'inexécution prolongée de décisions judiciaires, ou encore dans une affaire dirigée contre la Turquie (Ä°çyer c. Turquie (déc.), no 18888/02, CEDH 2006-I) concernant un nouveau recours indemnitaire visant l'ingérence dans le droit de propriété.
• EGMR, 25.03.2021 - 14013/19

  CAUCHI v. MALTA

  In view of these considerations, the Court cannot accept that Article 12B was designed to deal effectively and meaningfully with the issue of the disproportionate interference arising from the applicable rent laws, which has already been recognised by the domestic courts (contrast, mutatis mutandis, Nagovitsyin and Nalgiyev v. Russia, (dec.), no. 27451/09 and 60650/09, 23 September 2010).
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 33502/09

  [ENG]

  Among such exceptions there certainly are situations where, following a pilot judgment on the merits in which the Court has found a systemic violation of the Convention, the respondent State makes available a remedy to redress at domestic level grievances of similarly situated persons (see Demopoulos and Others §§ 87-88; Broniowski v. Poland (merits) [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 191-193, ECHR 2004-V; and Nagovitsyn v. Russia no. 27451/09 and Nalgiyev v. Russia (no. 60650/09) (dec.), 23 September 2010, §§ 25-26 and 33-44).
• EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 31634/18

  RIMSÄ'VICS v. LATVIA and 1 other application

  29026/06 and 11 others, § 177 and §§ 216-18, 17 March 2020, and Olkhovik and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 11279/17 and 2 others, §§ 34-41 and § 43, 22 February 2022); in respect of failure to execute domestic judgments (see Nagovitsyn and Nalgiyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 27451/09 and 60650/09, §§ 36-40, 23 September 2010, and Balan v. Moldova (dec.), no. 44746/08, §§ 22-30, 24 January 2012); in respect of prison overcrowding (see Łatak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, §§ 79-82, 12 October 2010, and Stella and Others v. Italy (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 17.03.2020 - 29026/06

  [ENG]

  27451/09 and 60650/09, 23 September 2010 concerning the non-enforcement of judgments; Stella and 10 Other applications v. Italy (dec.), no. 49169/09, 16 September 2014, and Łatak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010 concerning prison overcrowding; Techniki Olympiaki A.E. v. Greece (dec.), no. 40547/10, 1 October 2013; Balakchiev and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 65187/10, 18 June 2013, and Müdür Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013 concerning the length of proceedings; and Hodžić v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 3461/08, 4 April 2017 concerning "old" foreign-currency savings).
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 9662/13

  TSONEV v. BULGARIA

  27451/09 and 60650/09, § 30, 23 September 2010, and Société Provitel Saint-Georges and Emery, cited above).
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 45705/07

  D.G. v. POLAND

  27451/09 and 60650/09, §§ 25-26 and 33-44, 23 September 2010).
• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 44387/04

  TKHYEGEPSO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 4586/18

  FULLANI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 35422/16

  ALI REZA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 42584/21

  B & B PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. MALTA
• EGMR, 02.04.2019 - 54494/11

  ALEXANDRU MIHAI POP c. ROUMANIE et 1 affaire
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 69591/14

  KOLEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2694/08

  REYNOLDS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 14667/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 07.09.2021 - 36027/19

  DADUSENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 77056/14

  SHTOLTS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 20289/10

  UDALOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 50346/07

  DIMITAR YANAKIEV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 2173/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 10404/10

  RUMINSKI v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 16967/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 5734/08

  ILYUSHKIN ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 33509/04

  BOURDOV CONTRE LA RUSSIE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 43301/07

  LVIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 18892/04

  KRASNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 52283/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 54390/18

  TUPIKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 13813/06

  SHIBAYEVA v. RUSSIA + 13 other applications
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 35425/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 16200/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 47180/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 45497/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.10.2019 - 77185/11

  PODDUBNYY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 40125/08

  MOROSANU v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 21772/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 17220/09

  DINCHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 45482/08

  JOVEVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 14543/06

  KHODAR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 38229/11

  ABASHEV ET PLOTNIKOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 21116/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 15658/09

  STOLYAROVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 45291/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 30212/06

  KUZMIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.05.2012 - 18364/06

  GRZYWACZEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 16596/04

  FURSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 24169/05

  KHALIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 6705/07

  LEBEDEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 50113/07

  POSTNOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 23931/10

  LEONTE v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 16086/04

  KALININ v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 39272/04

  [ENG]