Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAKAROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 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 - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 7023/03

  The Court further recalls that the domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 7023/03

  That Article does not institute for individuals a kind of actio popularis for the interpretation of the Convention; it does not permit individuals to complain against a law in abstracto simply because they feel that it contravenes the Convention (see Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, pp. 17-18, § 33).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 7023/03

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 7023/03

  The Court reiterates that a "claim" can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Burdov v. Russia, cited above, § 40, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 84, § 59).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 7023/03

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  FONTES MOREIRA FERREIRA c. PORTUGAL

  [55] See Gluhaković v. Croatia, no. 21188/09, § 89, 12 April 2011, Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 33, 24 February 2005, and Makarova and others v. Russia, no. 7023/03, § 37, 24 February 2005.
• EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 58263/00

  TIMOFEYEV AND 234 OTHER CASES AGAINST THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

  7023/03.

  7023/03.

• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

  FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA

  It therefore considers that the Government should secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the award made by the domestic courts (see Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, § 33; Makarova and Others v. Russia, no. 7023/03, § 37, judgments of 24 February 2005).

• EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 24669/02

  GERASIMOVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court recalls that the most appropriate form of redress in respect of a violation of Article 6 is to ensure that the applicant as far as possible is put in the position he would have been in had the requirements of Article 6 not been disregarded (see Makarova and Others v. Russia, no. 7023/03, § 47, 24 February 2005 and Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, § 33, 24 February 2005).
• VG Köln, 07.04.2006 - 18 K 8334/03

  Streit um die Ablehnung eines Antrags auf Verlängerung der fiktiven Zulassung …

  Rn. 31 Vgl. OVG Berlin, Beschluss vom 06.08.1999 - 5 N 3.99 - Urteil vom 20.09.2001- 5 B 15.99 -, mit weiteren Nachweisen; vgl. auch VG Berlin, Urteil vom 05.11.1998 - 14 A 520.95 - und vom 22.10.1998 - 14 A 369.95 - VG Köln, Urteil vom 20.01.2006 - 7023/03 -.
• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 39866/02

  SHESTOPALOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Rn. 32 The Court finds that some pecuniary loss must have been occasioned by reason of the period that elapsed from the time between the entry into force of the judgments in question and their subsequent enforcement (see, e.g., Poznakhirina, cited above, § 34 and Makarova and others v. Russia, no. 7023/03, 24 February 2005, § 38).
• EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 34150/04

  POGULYAYEV v. RUSSIA

  It therefore considers that the Government should secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the award made by the domestic courts (see Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, § 33, and Makarova and Others v. Russia, no. 7023/03, § 37, judgments of 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 24770/04

  USTALOV v. RUSSIA

  It therefore considers that the Government should secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the award made by the domestic courts (see Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, § 33; Makarova and Others v. Russia, no. 7023/03, § 37, judgments of 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 20260/04

  BRAGINA v. RUSSIA

  The Court finds that some pecuniary loss must have been occasioned by reason of the period that elapsed between the date the judgment became enforceable and the date of its execution (see, among other authorities, Poznakhirina, cited above, § 34; Makarova and Others v. Russia, no. 7023/03, 24 February 2005, § 38; and Shestopalova and Others v. Russia, cited above, § 32).
• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 27295/03

  KORCHAGINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Rn. 31 The Court finds that some pecuniary loss must have been occasioned by reason of the period that elapsed from the time between the entry into force of the judgments in question and their subsequent enforcement (see, e.g., Poznakhirina, cited above, § 34 and Makarova and others v. Russia, no. 7023/03, 24 February 2005, § 38).
• EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 61651/00

  OOO RUSATOMMET v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 33685/05

  NARTOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 33706/05

  LYUDMILA ALEKSENTSEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 33689/05

  DEYKINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 33728/05

  VORONINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 33707/05

  VOLOSKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 34422/03

  POLITOVA AND POLITOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 33720/05

  ZAICHENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 8011/02

  VASILYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 22534/02

  MIKHAYLOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 13995/02

  KAZARTSEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 5945/04

  FURMAN v. RUSSIA