Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SUKHORUBCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to access to a court Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings Not necessary to examine Art. 13 No violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 69315/01
• EGMR, 10.02.2005 - 69315/01

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2005 - 69315/01

  The Court reiterates that the procedural guarantees laid down in Article 6 secure to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal; in this way it embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 13-18, §§ 28-36).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2005 - 69315/01

  It further recalls that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not oblige a State to maintain the purchasing power of amounts deposited with financial institutions (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-X; Appolonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47578/01, 29 August 2002).
• EGMR, 04.10.2001 - 47636/99

  TEUSCHLER contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2005 - 69315/01

  The Court recalls in this context that it is incumbent on the interested party to display special diligence in the defence of his interests (see Teuschler v. Germany (dec.), no. 47636/99, 4 October 2001).

• EGMR, 05.02.2004 - 68798/01

  BOGONOS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2005 - 69315/01

  The Court distinguishes therefore the present application from those cases in which the Government supported their assertions with a copy of the cover letter accompanying the document sent to the applicant (see Novoselov v. Russia (dec.), no. 66460/01, 8 July 2004; Bogonos v. Russia (dec.), no. 68798/01, 5 February 2004).
• EGMR, 01.04.2004 - 74694/01

  KRIVONOGOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2005 - 69315/01

  Accordingly, to substantiate his property complaint the applicant has to prove that he has lost the chance of recovering his deposit or a certain part of it and that the loss of opportunity could be ascribed to a State act or omission (see Krivonogova v. Russia (dec.), no. 74694/01, 1 April 2004).
• EGMR, 10.02.2004 - 18905/02

  CARNDUFF v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2005 - 69315/01

  The Court recalls that, as regards the right of access to a court, Article 6 § 1 is to be considered as constituting a lex specialis in relation to Article 13 (see, most recently, Jalloh v. Germany (dec.), no. 54810/00, 26 October 2004; Carnduff v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 18905/02, 10 February 2004).
• EGMR, 29.08.2002 - 47578/01

  APPOLONOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2005 - 69315/01

  It further recalls that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not oblige a State to maintain the purchasing power of amounts deposited with financial institutions (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-X; Appolonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47578/01, 29 August 2002).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 28005/12

  M.N. AND OTHERS v. SAN MARINO

  The Court reiterates that the institution of proceedings does not, in itself, satisfy all the access to court requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see, for example, Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, § 43, 10 February 2005), it follows from this that, contrary to what was submitted by the Government, the mere fact that the applicant instituted those proceedings, which were then rejected for lack of standing, does not in itself satisfy the requirement of effective control under Article 8.
• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 6865/19

  FEILAZOO v. MALTA

  Lastly, the Court recalls that it is the responsibility of the interested party to display special diligence in the defence of his/her interests (see Teuschler v. Germany (dec.), no. 47636/99, 4 October 2001, and Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, §§ 41-43, 10 February 2005).
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA

  It reiterates that it is incumbent on the interested party to display special diligence in the defence of his interests (see Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, § 48, 10 February 2005; Shatunov and Shatunova v. Russia (dec.), no. 31271/02, 23 July 2002; and Teuschler v. Germany (dec.), no. 47636/99, 4 October 2001).

• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 26986/03

  GALSTYAN v. ARMENIA

  Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (see, among many other authorities, Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, § 43, 10 February 2005).
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25782/11

  KARDOS v. CROATIA

  Having regard to its findings above, and given that Article 6 § 1 is to be considered a lex specialis in relation to Article 13 (see, for example, Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, § 60, 10 February 2005, and Jalloh v. Germany (dec.), no. 54810/00, 26 October 2004), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the merits of the applicant's identical complaint made under Article 13 of the Convention (see Jovanović v. Serbia, no. 32299/08, § 53, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 32299/08

  [ENG]

  Having regard to its findings above (see paragraph 50 above) and given that Article 6 § 1 is to be considered as constituting a lex specialis in relation to Article 13 (see, for example, Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, § 60, 10 February 2005, and Jalloh v. Germany (dec.), no. 54810/00, 26 October 2004), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility or the merits of the applicant's identical complaint made under Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Milanovic v. Serbia, no. 44614/07, § 103, 14 December 2010).
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 5968/09

  [ENG]

  The Court recalls that it is incumbent on an interested party to display special diligence in the defence of his interests (see Teuschler v. Germany (dec.), no. 47636/99, 4 October 2001, and Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, §§ 41-43, 10 February 2005).
• EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 316/19

  MOHORIC v. SLOVENIA

  In this respect Article 6 § 1 is to be regarded as constituting a lex specialis in relation to Article 13 (see Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, § 60, 10 February 2005).
• EGMR, 30.04.2014 - 15253/10

  [ENG]

  Having regard to its findings above, and given that Article 6 § 1 is to be considered as constituting a lex specialis in relation to Article 13 (see, for example, Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, § 60, 10 February 2005, and Jalloh v. Germany (dec.), no. 54810/00, 26 October 2004), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the merits of the applicant's identical complaint made under Article 13 of the Convention (see Jovanovic v. Serbia, no. 32299/08, § 53, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 24197/10

  [ENG]

  It is incumbent on the interested party to display special diligence in the defence of his interests (see Teuschler v. Germany (dec.), no. 47636/99, 4 October 2001, and Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, §§ 41-43, 10 February 2005).
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 4537/04

  SIDOROVA (ADUKEVICH) v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.07.2007 - 11529/04

  BASKIENE v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 4856/03

  DUBINSKAYA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 2006/13

  EKSIOGLU v. TURKEY and 1 other application
• EGMR, 18.02.2021 - 18015/19

  GROS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 05.05.2020 - 26817/17

  ROMAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 18912/15

  VUJOVIC AND LIPA D.O.O. v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 26.09.2017 - 62269/12

  PETROVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 39898/03

  KHARITONOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 17327/02

  LUKYANCHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 34786/03

  BALATSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 18656/13

  VIKTOR NAZARENKO v. UKRAINE