Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SUKHOBOKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (non-enforcement) Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 38305/02

  GOROKHOV AND RUSYAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2006 - 75470/01

  The State should comply with final judicial decisions against it within reasonable time (see Burdov, cited above, §§ 35-37; Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02, § 35, 17 March 2005).

• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 23658/07

  CASACCHIA AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Although statutory pension regulations are liable to change and a judicial decision cannot be relied on as a guarantee against such changes in the future (see Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, § 26, 13 April 2006), even if such changes are to the disadvantage of certain welfare recipients, the State cannot interfere with the process of adjudication in an arbitrary manner (see, mutatis mutandis, Bulgakova v. Russia, no. 69524/01, § 42, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 17972/07

  ARRAS AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Although statutory pension regulations are liable to change and a judicial decision cannot be relied on as a guarantee against such changes in the future (see Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, § 26, 13 April 2006), even if such changes are to the disadvantage of certain welfare recipients, the State cannot interfere with the process of adjudication in an arbitrary manner (see, mutatis mutandis, Bulgakova v. Russia, no. 69524/01, § 42, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 19264/07

  NATALE AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Although statutory pension regulations are liable to change and a judicial decision cannot be relied on as a guarantee against such changes in the future (see Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, § 26, 13 April 2006), even if such changes are to the disadvantage of certain welfare recipients, the State cannot interfere with the process of adjudication in an arbitrary manner (see, mutatis mutandis, Bulgakova v. Russia, no. 69524/01, § 42, 18 January 2007).

 
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 46286/09

  MAGGIO AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Although statutory pension regulations are liable to change and a judicial decision cannot be relied on as a guarantee against such changes in the future (see Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, § 26, 13 April 2006), even if such changes are to the disadvantage of certain welfare recipients, the State cannot interfere with the process of adjudication in an arbitrary manner (see, mutatis mutandis, Bulgakova v. Russia, no. 69524/01, § 42, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 17.02.2022 - 46586/14

  D'AMICO v. ITALY

  Although statutory pension regulations are liable to change and a judicial decision cannot be relied on as a guarantee against such changes in the future (see Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, § 26, 13 April 2006), even if such changes are to the disadvantage of certain welfare recipients, the State cannot interfere with the process of adjudication in an arbitrary manner (see, mutatis mutandis, Bulgakova v. Russia, no. 69524/01, § 42, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 23.07.2009 - 756/05

  MARKOVTSI AND SELIVANOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court further reiterates that the quashing of a judgment in a manner which has been found to have been incompatible with the principle of legal certainty and the applicant's "right to a court" cannot be accepted as justification for the failure to enforce that judgment (see Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, § 26, 13 April 2006).
• EGMR, 05.05.2009 - 25491/04

  THE MREVLI FOUNDATION v. GEORGIA

  The review cannot be treated as an "appeal in disguise", and the mere possibility that there may be different opinions on the subject is not a ground for a re-examination (see Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, § 25, 18 November 2004; Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, §§ 25 and 26, 13 April 2006).
• EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 3333/08

  TATUYEV v. RUSSIA

  As regards the eventual annulment of the judgment on account of newly discovered circumstances, the Court reiterates its established case-law to the effect that quashing a final and enforceable judgment in a manner which does not respect the principle of legal certainty and the applicant's "right to a court" (see the Court's findings in paragraphs 54 and 55 above) cannot be accepted as a reason to justify the non-enforcement of the judgment (see Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, § 26, 13 April 2006, and Velskaya, cited above, § 18).
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 38585/04

  SIZINTSEVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court further reiterates that the quashing of a judgment in a manner which has been found to have been incompatible with the principle of legal certainty and the applicant's "right to a court" cannot be accepted as justification for the failure to enforce that judgment (see Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, § 26, 13 April 2006).