Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IGOR VASILCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 8 No violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 22000/03

  RAYLYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 6571/04

  A delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances, but the delay must not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1 (see Burdov, cited above, § 35; Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 52, 6 October 2005; and Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 20, 13 January 2005, Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 29, 15 February 2007).
• EGMR, 13.01.2005 - 5124/03

  GIZZATOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 6571/04

  A delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances, but the delay must not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1 (see Burdov, cited above, § 35; Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 52, 6 October 2005; and Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 20, 13 January 2005, Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 29, 15 February 2007).
• EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 52854/99

  RYABYKH AND 112 OTHER CASES AGAINST RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 6571/04

  Departures from that principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-X, and Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, § 24, 18 January 2007; Protsenko, cited above, § 26).
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 63973/00

  ANDROSOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 6571/04

  A delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances, but the delay must not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1 (see Burdov, cited above, § 35; Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 52, 6 October 2005; and Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 20, 13 January 2005, Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 29, 15 February 2007).

• EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15

  IVANOVA AND CHERKEZOV v. BULGARIA

  On this point, the case bears considerable resemblance with cases concerning the eviction of tenants from public housing (see McCann, cited above; Cosic, cited above; Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, 22 October 2009; Kay and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 37341/06, 21 September 2010; Kryvitska and Kryvitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 30856/03, 2 December 2010; Igor Vasilchenko v. Russia, no. 6571/04, 3 February 2011; and Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, 29 May 2012), and cases concerning the eviction of occupiers from publicly owned land (see Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, ECHR 2001-I; Connors v. the United Kingdom, no. 66746/01, 27 May 2004; Yordanova and Others, cited above; Buckland v. the United Kingdom, no. 40060/08, 18 September 2012; and Winterstein and Others v. France, no. 27013/07, 17 October 2013).
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 25330/07

  JOKSAS v. LITHUANIA

  It will be for the respondent Government to demonstrate, firstly, that a civil servant applicant does not have a right of access to a court under national law and, secondly, that the exclusion of the rights under Article 6 for the civil servant is justified (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007-II; also see Igor Vasilchenko v. Russia, no. 6571/04, § 46, 3 February 2011).