Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KONSTANTINOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• VGH der UEK, 29.03.2005 - 29/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 60708/13

  29/01/1987.
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 11/04

  VOTTO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 60708/13

  11/04/2008.
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05

  GERASIMOV v. RUSSIA and 14 other applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 60708/13

  In the wake of the pilot judgment in the case of Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, on 24 November 2014 the application was communicated to the Government for settlement or resolution (see Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, §§ 230-31 and point 13 of the operative part, 1 July 2014).

• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 35555/05

  KAMNEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 60708/13

  35555/05 and 6 others, 2 May 2017).
• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 44387/04

  TKHYEGEPSO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 60708/13

  On the other hand, in the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy, the Court, as in its previous decisions, considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicants' complaint under Article 13 in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Korotyayeva and Others, nos. 13122/11 and 2 others, § 40, 18 July 2017, and Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, nos. 44387/04 and 11 others, §§ 21-24, 25 October 2011).
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 45875/06

  RAFIG ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 60708/13

  However, Ms Konstantinova has the opportunity to lodge a new application in respect of the above complaint (see Rafig Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 45875/06, § 70, 6 December 2011).
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03

  PRIDATCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 60708/13

  The Court considers that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to secure, by appropriate means, enforcement of the unenforced judgments in the applicants' favour (see Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 2191/03 and 3 others, § 68, 21 June 2007, and Salikova v. Russia, no. 25270/06, § 83, 15 July 2010).
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 39786/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 60708/13

  The Court does not find it appropriate to examine any new matters raised by the applicants after communication of the application to the Government, as long as they do not constitute an elaboration upon the applicants' original complaints to the Court (see Yefimova v. Russia, no. 39786/09, § 177, 19 February 2013, with further references).
• EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 13122/11

  KOROTYAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 60708/13

  On the other hand, in the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy, the Court, as in its previous decisions, considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicants' complaint under Article 13 in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Korotyayeva and Others, nos. 13122/11 and 2 others, § 40, 18 July 2017, and Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, nos. 44387/04 and 11 others, §§ 21-24, 25 October 2011).
• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 25270/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 60708/13

  The Court considers that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to secure, by appropriate means, enforcement of the unenforced judgments in the applicants' favour (see Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 2191/03 and 3 others, § 68, 21 June 2007, and Salikova v. Russia, no. 25270/06, § 83, 15 July 2010).
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 77056/14

  SHTOLTS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 26216/07

  [FRE]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 13813/06

  SHIBAYEVA v. RUSSIA + 13 other applications

  In the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy and in line with its previous decisions, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 13 in the relevant part (see, mutatis mutandis, Konstantinova and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 60708/13, §§ 30-33, 5 February 2019; Stroganova and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 51391/07, 6 November 2018; and Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 5489/10

  YUNUSOVA v. RUSSIA

  Given its above findings and having regard to the nature of the domestic awards made by national courts in the present case, the Court considers that there is no need for a separate examination of the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Lyubov Stetsenko v. Russia, no. 26216/07, § 92, 17 April 2014, and Konstantinova and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 60708/13, § 29, 5 February 2019).