Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RADCHIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 65582/01
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 65582/01

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 65582/01

  The Court notes, in response to the Government's argument, that it has repeatedly granted claims for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage lodged by the next-of-kin on behalf of their deceased relatives (see, for example, Vocaturo v. Italy, judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-C, pp. 29 and 30, §§ 2 and 19, or Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, pp. 8 and 10, §§ 2 and 49) and that there is nothing in the circumstances of the present case or in the Government's submissions to justify a departure from that practice.
• EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 53203/99

  VANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 65582/01

  Furthermore, proceedings before the supervisory review court should afford all the procedural safeguards of Article 6 § 1 and must ensure the overall fairness of the entire proceedings (see Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, §§ 63-68, 15 December 2005).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 50178/99

  NIKITINE c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 65582/01

  Fourthly, the Government referred to the Court's ruling in the case of Nikitin v. Russia (no. 50178/99, ECHR 2004-VIII) that the principle of legal certainty was not absolute and argued that the reopening of the case at issue was justified by the need to correct a "fundamental defect in the previous proceedings which might affect the outcome of the case" within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.

• KAGH, 27.04.2012 - M 12/11

  Änderung der Parkordnung eines Parkhauses; Zustimmung der Mitarbeitervertretung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 65582/01

  12/11/2007.
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 65582/01

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 72776/01

  BRATYAKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 65582/01

  The relevant considerations to be taken into account in this connection include, in particular, the effect of the reopening and any subsequent proceedings on the applicant's individual situation and whether the reopening resulted from the applicant's own request; the grounds on which the domestic authorities revoked the finality of the judgment in the applicant's case; the compliance of the procedure at issue with the requirements of the domestic law; the existence and operation of procedural safeguards in the domestic legal system capable of preventing abuses of this procedure by the domestic authorities; and other pertinent circumstances of the case (see Nikitin, cited above, § 60; Bratyakin v. Russia (dec.), no. 72776/01, 9 March 2006; Fadin v. Russia, no. 58079/00, § 34, 27 July 2006; and Savinskiy, cited above, §§ 24-26).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 11436/06

  MITYANIN v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  Taking note of the Government's acknowledgment of the violation and the pace of the proceedings (in particular, various omissions between January 2004 and December 2006 (for the first applicant) and December 2003 and December 2006 (for the second applicant) resulting in the remittal of the case to the prosecutor and impeding the examination of the charge by the trial court), the Court concludes that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of each applicant (see also, mutatis mutandis, Radchikov v. Russia, no. 65582/01, § 50, 24 May 2007).
• EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 29226/03

  [FRE]

  Contrairement à ce que soutient le Gouvernement, la Cour considère que le fait que le procureur général a engagé le recours en annulation dans un court délai ne change en rien à la situation en l'espèce ni aux défauts de cette voie particulière de recours tel qu'identifiés ci-dessus, d'autant plus que l'arrêt définitif annulé avait été exécuté et le requérant avait été remis en liberté (mutatis mutandis Bota c. Roumanie, no 16382/03, § 39, 4 novembre 2008 et Radchikov c. Russie, no 65582/01, § 46, 24 mai 2007).
• EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 37959/02

  XHERAJ v. ALBANIA

  The relevant considerations to be taken into account in this connection include, in particular, the effect of the reopening and any subsequent proceedings on the applicant's individual situation and whether the reopening resulted from the applicant's own request; the grounds on which the domestic authorities revoked the finality of the judgment in the applicant's case; the compliance of the procedure at issue with the requirements of the domestic law; the existence and operation of procedural safeguards in the domestic legal system capable of preventing abuses of this procedure by the domestic authorities; and other pertinent circumstances of the case (Radchikov v. Russia, no. 65582/01, § 44, 24 May 2007).

• EGMR, 04.08.2020 - 38639/14

  ARZAMAZOVA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  In other words, the risk of any mistake made by the State authority must be borne by the State and the errors must not be remedied at the expense of the individual concerned (see Gashi v. Croatia, no. 32457/05, § 40, 13 December 2007, and, mutatis mutandis, Radchikov v. Russia, no. 65582/01, § 50, 24 May 2007).
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 12064/04

  OOO ROUSATOMMET c. RUSSIE (NO 2)

  La Cour a établi par conséquent que la requête ne s'éteint pas avec la disparition de la personne personnellement concernée par une violation alléguée si la question centrale soulevée par la cause dépasse la personne et les intérêts de celle-ci (Deweer c. Belgique, arrêt du 27 février 1980, Séries A no 35, §§ 37-38, Radchikov c. Russie, (déc), no 65582/01, 4 octobre 2005, Karner, précité, § 25).
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 46926/09

  [ENG]

  Previously the Court indicated that the fundamental defects in the proceedings justifying annulment of a final and binding judgment may include jurisdictional errors, serious breaches of court procedure, abuses of power, manifest errors in the application of substantive law or any other weighty reasons stemming from the interests of justice (see Radchikov v. Russia, no. 65582/01, § 48, 24 May 2007).
• EGMR - 30504/23 (anhängig)

  JANKULOSKA v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  Were the applicant's prosecution, trial and conviction for electoral offences permissible and compatible with the principles of rule of law and legal certainty? If not, has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on this ground (see, mutatis mutandis, Radchikov v. Russia, no. 65582/01, § 42, 24 May 2007; and Xheraj v. Albania, no. 37959/02, §§ 51 and 52, 29 July 2008)?.
• EGMR - 63354/16 (anhängig)

  PEVZNER (PEVSNER) v. RUSSIA

  L'arrêt du présidium de la Cour suprême de Russie du 28 avril 2016, par lequel la décision du 24 juin 2014 a été cassée, a-t-il porté atteinte au principe de sécurité juridique (Brumărescu c. Roumanie [GC], no 28342/95, § 62, CEDH 1999-VII, et Radchikov c. Russie, no 65582/01, §§ 45-53, 24 mai 2007) ? Les requérants, peuvent-ils se prétendre victimes de cette violation alléguée ?.
• EGMR, 05.04.2016 - 63833/09

  [ENG]

  Previously the Court indicated that the fundamental defects in the proceedings justifying annulment of a final and binding judgment may include jurisdictional errors, serious breaches of court procedure, abuses of power, manifest errors in the application of substantive law or any other weighty reasons stemming from the interests of justice (see Radchikov v. Russia, no. 65582/01, § 48, 24 May 2007).