Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2003,41251
EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99 (https://dejure.org/2003,41251)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.07.2003 - 52854/99 (https://dejure.org/2003,41251)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. Juli 2003 - 52854/99 (https://dejure.org/2003,41251)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,41251) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation de l'art. 6-1 quant au droit à un tribunal Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 6-1 quant à une procédure équitable Non-violation de P1-1 (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RYABYKH v. RUSSIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the right to a court Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 with regard to procedural fairness No violation of P1-1 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (205)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

  • EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 45526/99

    GAYDUK ET AUTRES c. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99
    45526/99 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; or, as a more recent authority, Appolonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 67578/01, 29 August 2002).
  • EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 45223/99

    RUDZINSKA v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99
    However, it is not the State's failure to reinstate the applicant's savings which lies at the heart of the complaint under Article 6 (see X v. Germany, no. 8724/79, Commission decision of 6 March 1980, Decisions and Reports 20, p. 226; Rudzinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 45223/99, ECHR 1999-VI; Gayduk and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), nos.
  • EKMR, 06.03.1980 - 8724/79

    X.v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99
    However, it is not the State's failure to reinstate the applicant's savings which lies at the heart of the complaint under Article 6 (see X v. Germany, no. 8724/79, Commission decision of 6 March 1980, Decisions and Reports 20, p. 226; Rudzinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 45223/99, ECHR 1999-VI; Gayduk and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), nos.
  • EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

    BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

    La Cour estime en outre que, globalement, cette situation procédurale a aussi porté atteinte au principe de la sécurité juridique (Riabykh c. Russie, no 52854/99, §§ 51-52, CEDH 2003-IX).
  • EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 33771/02

    DRIZA c. ALBANIE

    One of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty, which requires, among other things, that where the courts have finally determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII; Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 51-56, ECHR 2003-IX; and Rosca v. Moldova, no. 6267/02, § 24, 22 March 2005).

    The fact that this remedy was revoked after the occurrence of the pertinent events in this case is of no relevance: there exist no domestic remedies capable of remedying the impairment of the principle of legal certainty brought about by the use of the supervisory-review procedure and its effects were never redressed in the present case (see Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no. 69582/01, ECHR 2004-II, and Ryabykh v. Russia (dec.), no. 52854/99, 21 February 2002).

  • EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 36495/02

    KURINNYY v. RUSSIA

    For the relevant provisions on the supervisory review proceedings contained in the 1964 Code of Civil Procedure see the Court's judgment in the case Ryabykh v. Russia (no. 52854/99, §§ 31-42, ECHR 2003-IX).

    The Court reiterates its constant case-law to the effect that the quashing by way of supervisory review of a judicial decision which has become final and binding may render the litigant's right to a court illusory and infringe the principle of legal certainty (see, among many other authorities, Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-VII; Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 56-58, 24 July 2003; Roseltrans v. Russia, no. 60974/00, §§ 27-28, 21 July 2005).

    First, the Court observes that the application for supervisory review was lodged by the President of the Regional Court who had not been a party to the proceedings (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 54, ECHR 2003-IX).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht