Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PRAVEDNAYA v. RUSSIA

  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 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.09.2003 - 69529/01
• EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 69529/01

Wird zitiert von ... (32)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 69529/01

  However a "claim"-even concerning a pension-can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Stran Greek Refineries v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301, § 59).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 69529/01

  The Court considers that by depriving the applicant of the right to benefit from the pension in the amount secured in a final judgment, the State upset a fair balance between the interests at stake (see, mutatis mutandis Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, § 43).
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 24846/94

  ZIELINSKI ET PRADAL & GONZALEZ ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 69529/01

  Respect for the rule of law and the notion of a fair trial require that any reasons adduced to justify such measures be treated with the greatest possible degree of circumspection (see The National & Provincial Building Society, the Leeds Permanent Building Society and the Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 October 1997, Reports 1997-VII, § 112; Zielinski and Pradal & Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 57, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 58263/00

  TIMOFEYEV AND 234 OTHER CASES AGAINST THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 69529/01

  In these circumstances, the Court makes no award under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 67-68, ECHR 2003-X, Timofeyev v. Russia, no. 58263/00, §§ 51-52, 23 October 2003).
• EGMR, 15.03.2001 - 30517/96

  AUNOLA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 69529/01

  The Court reiterates first that the right to an old-age pension or any social benefit in a particular amount is not included as such among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention (see, for example, Aunola v. Finland (dec.), no. 30517/96, 15 March 2001).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 852/02

  SMIRNITSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  They noted that in the case of Pravednaya v. Russia (no. 69529/01, 18 November 2004) the Court had regarded a judicial award of that type as the applicant's "possession".

  They referred to a number of judgments and decisions including Francesco Lombardo v. Italy (judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-B), Androsov v. Russia (no. 63973/00, 6 October 2005), Vasilyev v. Russia ((dec.), no. 66543/01, 1 April 2004), and Pravednaya v. Russia ((dec.), no. 69529/01, 25 September 2003).

• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 560/02

  NIKOLAY ZHUKOV v. RUSSIA

  They noted that in the case of Pravednaya v. Russia (no. 69529/01, 18 November 2004) the Court had regarded a judicial award of that type as the applicant's "possession".

  He referred to a number of judgments and decisions including Francesco Lombardo v. Italy (judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-B), Androsov v. Russia (no. 63973/00, 6 October 2005), Vasilyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 66543/01, 1 April 2004), and Pravednaya v. Russia (dec.), no. 69529/01, 25 September 2003).

• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 842/02

  VOLKOVA AND BASOVA v. RUSSIA

  They noted that in the case of Pravednaya v. Russia (no. 69529/01, 18 November 2004) the Court had regarded a judicial award of that type as the applicant's "possession".

  They referred to a number of judgments and decisions including Francesco Lombardo v. Italy (judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-B), Androsov v. Russia (no. 63973/00, 6 October 2005), Vasilyev v. Russia ((dec.), no. 66543/01, 1 April 2004), and Pravednaya v. Russia ((dec.), no. 69529/01, 25 September 2003).

• EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 16909/02

  TYURINY v. RUSSIA

  This complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, §§ 19-42, 18 November 2004).

  Respect for the rule of law and the notion of a fair trial require that any reasons adduced to justify such measures be treated with the greatest possible degree of circumspection (see The National & Provincial Building Society, the Leeds Permanent Building Society and the Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 October 1997, Reports 1997-VII, § 112; Zielinski and Pradal & Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 57, ECHR 1999-VII; and Pravednaya v Russia, no. 69529/01, § 26, 18 November 2004).

• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 69524/01

  BULGAKOVA v. RUSSIA

  This complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see in this respect Pravednaya v. Russia (dec.), no. 69529/01, 25 September 2003).

  The Government contested that the pension awarded to the applicant by virtue of the judgment of 21 October 1999 was her "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They noted that in the case Pravednaya v. Russia (no. 69529/01, 18 November 2004) the Court regarded a judicial award of that type as the applicant's "possessions".

• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03

  PRIDATCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In view of the above, the Court makes no award under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, Sirin v. Turkey, no. 47328/99, §§ 27-29, 15 March 2005, and Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, §§ 43-46, 18 November 2004).
• EGMR, 13.04.2006 - 75470/01

  SUKHOBOKOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court further notes that it found a violation of Article 6 § 1 in the case of Pravednaya, in which a final judgment allowing the applicant's claim for re-calculation of her old-age pension was quashed by way of reopening of the proceedings on account of the discovery of new circumstances, notably an instruction of 29 December 1999 of the federal Ministry of Labour and Social Development which clarified how to apply the Pensions Law underlying the judgment (see Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, 18 November 2004).
• EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 679/11

  SOLOMUN v. CROATIA

  However, as observed above, these facts were obviously a matter for examination before the Hrvatska Kostajnica Municipal Court and the Sisak County Court, and thus the request for the protection of legality was in fact more of a disguised appeal by the State Attorney's Office to secure an additional re-examination of those same facts than an attempt to secure the principle of legal certainty by preventing inconsistency in civil courts" judgments (see Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, § 32, 18 November 2004).
• EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 70306/10

  TIGRAK v. TURKEY

  In the light of the applicant's submissions, the Court therefore considers that she cannot claim to be the victim of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ţuluş and Others v. Romania, no. 40892/04, §§ 26-28, 26 January 2010, and compare Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, § 39, 18 November 2004).
• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 17972/07

  [ENG]

  However, a "claim" concerning a pension can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 where it has a sufficient basis in national law, for example where it is confirmed by a final court judgment (see Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, §§ 37-39, 18 November 2004; and Bulgakova, cited above, § 31).
• EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 3236/03

  PONOMARYOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 46286/09

  MAGGIO AND OTHERS v. ITALY
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 21838/10

  STEFANETTI v. ITALY and 7 other applications
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 19134/05

  BOLYUKH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.05.2009 - 25491/04

  THE MREVLI FOUNDATION v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 11589/04

  TETSEN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 68029/01

  KUTEPOV AND ANIKEYENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 62006/09

  MITSOPOULOS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 60333/00

  SLYUSAREV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 1477/02

  S.C. PILOT SERVICE S.A. CONSTANTA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 3519/05

  SIDORENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 69533/01

  KONDRASHINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 944/02

  LEVOCHKINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 67579/01

  KUZNETSOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 1850/07

  MIKHAYLENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 62356/09

  POGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 19.06.2014 - 10122/04

  GURGACH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 69341/01

  YURIY ROMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 69533/01

  KONDRASHINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 69524/01

  BULGAKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 57211/13

  VYELYEV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 67099/01

  SOLODYUK v. RUSSIA