Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 62608/00 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AGROTEHSERVIS v. UKRAINE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 62608/00
- EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 62608/00
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 62608/00
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 48757/99
SHESTAKOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 62608/00
Thus the State's responsibility in the present case extends no further then the involvement of State bodies in the enforcement procedures (see Shestakov v. Russia, no. 48757/99, decision of 18 June 2002). - EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02
PRYSTAVSKA contre l'UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 62608/00
Hence, the transitional provisions provided an ordinary appeal remedy, in contrast to the transitional provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, where any decision which had become binding, however long ago, could be appealed against to the Supreme Court of Ukraine within three months after the new cassation procedure had been established (see Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, Reports 2002-X). - EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 27517/02
VOROBYEVA v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 62608/00
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Court agrees with the Government that the appeal procedure under these transitional provisions could be regarded as having been a part of ordinary proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Vorobyeva v. Ukraine (dec.), 27517/02, 17 December 2002).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 62608/00, 74104/01, 27640/02, 77317/01, 53500/99, 61333/00, 11370/02, 63158/00 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AGROTEHSERVIS ET 7 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'UKRAINE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AGROTEHSERVIS AND 7 OTHER CASES AGAINST UKRAINE
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 62608/00
- EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 62608/00
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 62608/00, 74104/01, 27640/02, 77317/01, 53500/99, 61333/00, 11370/02, 63158/00
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 27640/02
MAZNYAK c. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 77317/01
POLTORACHENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 11370/02
VASILYEV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 6778/05
MPP GOLUB c. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 62608/00
According to the Court's inadmissibility decisions in the cases of Vorobyeva (of 17/12/2002, No. 27517/02) and MPP Golub (of 18/10/2005, No. 6778/05), the review of final judgments through this new cassation procedure in all types of proceedings meet the requirements of the Convention. - EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 27517/02
VOROBYEVA v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 62608/00
According to the Court's inadmissibility decisions in the cases of Vorobyeva (of 17/12/2002, No. 27517/02) and MPP Golub (of 18/10/2005, No. 6778/05), the review of final judgments through this new cassation procedure in all types of proceedings meet the requirements of the Convention. - VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 11.07.2014 - 13/12
- KAG Freiburg, 02.08.2010 - 13/09
Wahlanfechtung
- VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 07.10.2005 - 18/04
- EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 9636/07
NOSOVA v. UKRAINE
The Court notes that this complaint raises issues of legal certainty similar to those with which the Court has already dealt in a number of cases and found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Agrotehservis v. Ukraine, no. 62608/00, §§ 42-43, 5 July 2005, and Timotiyevich v. Ukraine, no. 63158/00, §§ 32-33, 8 November 2005). - EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 22603/02
UKRAINE-TYUMEN v. UKRAINE
Although the instant case involves an issue of the domestic courts' non-compliance with the requirement of legal certainty under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, it differs from the vast majority of cases in which the Court found violations of the Convention in respect of the quashing of the final and binding decisions (see, for example, Agrotehservis v. Ukraine, no. 62608/00, 5 July 2005, and Timotiyevich v. Ukraine, no. 63158/00, 8 November 2005).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 62608/00 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AGROTEHSERVIS v. UKRAINE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - partial award (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 62608/00
- EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 62608/00
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 62608/00
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99
RIABYKH c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 62608/00
Rn. 41 In the light of the Court's consistent case-law on this issue, the fact that the applicant's claims were ultimately satisfied does not by itself remove the effects of the legal uncertainty which the applicant endured for two years after the final judgment of 10 April 1998 was quashed (see, mutatis mutandis, Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 49, ECHR 2003-X), given that the State did not offer any compensation for the pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant as a result of the quashing.
- EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11
DIMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
The Court has already had the occasion to condemn in the strongest terms attempts by non-judicial authorities to intervene in court proceedings (see Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 80, ECHR 2002-VII, and Agrotehservis v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 62608/00, 19 October 2004). - EGMR, 06.10.2011 - 23465/03
[ENG]
The Court has already condemned, in the strongest terms, attempts by non-judicial authorities to intervene in court proceedings, considering them to be ipso facto incompatible with the notion of an "independent and impartial tribunal" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 80, ECHR 2002-VII, and Agrotehservis v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 62608/00, 19 October 2004).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".