Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 07.07.2005 - 41302/02   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2005,39720
EGMR, 07.07.2005 - 41302/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,39720)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07.07.2005 - 41302/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,39720)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07. Juli 2005 - 41302/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,39720)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,39720) 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

    MALINOVSKIY v. RUSSIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MALINOVSKI c. RUSSIE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation de l'art. 6-1 Violation de P1-1 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire (französisch)

 
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 ... (50)

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 30.04.2019 - C-556/17

    Torubarov - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und

    Vgl. z. B. EGMR, Urteile vom 7. Mai 2002, Burdov/Russland (CE:ECHR:2002:0507JUD005949800, §§ 34 bis 37), vom 6. März 2003, Jasi?«niene/Litauen (CE:ECHR:2003:0306JUD004151098, §§ 27 bis 31), vom 7. April 2005, Uzkureliene/Litauen (CE:ECHR:2005:0407JUD006298800, § 36), wo allerdings festgestellt wurde, dass die geltend gemachten Verzögerungen bei der Vollstreckung einer gerichtlichen Entscheidung keinen Verstoß gegen Art. 6 Abs. 1 darstellen, vom 7. Juli 2005, Malinovskiy/Russland (CE:ECHR:2005:0707JUD004130202, §§ 34 bis 39), vom 31. Oktober 2006, Jelicic/Bosnien-Herzegovina (CE:ECHR:2006:1031JUD004118302, §§ 38 bis 45), vom 15. Oktober 2009, Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov/Ukraine (CE:ECHR:2009:1015JUD004045004, §§ 51 bis 57), und vom 19. Juni 2012, Murtic und Cerimovic/Bosnien-Herzegovina (CE:ECHR:2012:0619JUD000649509, §§ 27 bis 30).
  • EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05

    GERASIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Accordingly, the applicants received, by virtue of the judgments in their favour, a "legitimate expectation" to acquire a pecuniary asset, which was sufficiently established to constitute a "possession" falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, §§ 45-50, 30 June 2005; Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 46, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts); Kukalo v. Russia, no. 63995/00, § 61, 3 November 2005; and Sypchenko v. Russia, no. 38368/04, § 45, 1 March 2007).
  • EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 14717/04

    BERGER-KRALL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

    On the other hand, the Court has an extensive body of case-law in respect of former Soviet Union countries in which it has held that socially protected tenancies amounted to property rights precisely because the legislation enacted after the fall of the communist regime provided for the unconditional privatisation of apartments or houses occupied under such tenancies (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, ECHR 2005-VII, and Panchenko v. Ukraine, no. 10911/05, 10 December 2009).
  • EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 37805/05

    COSTACHESCU c. ROUMANIE

    Il fait valoir qu'à la différence de l'affaire Malinovski c. Russie, no 41302/02, la décision de justice a enjoint à l'administration de conclure avec la requérante un contrat de bail sur un appartement précis qui pourtant ne se trouvait pas dans la propriété ou sous l'administration de l'État.

    La Cour rappelle avoir déjà jugé que le droit à un bail, reconnu par une décision judiciaire définitive, représente une créance suffisamment établie pour constituer un «bien» au sens de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (Malinovski c. Russie, no 41302/02, § 45, CEDH 2005-VII (extraits) ; Tétériny c. Russie, no 11931/03, § 50, 30 juin 2005 ; Koukalo c. Russie, no 63995/00, § 58, 3 novembre 2005 ; Licu c. Roumanie, no 35077/02, §§ 36-37, 4 mars 2008).

  • EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 6859/02

    NAGOVITSYN v. RUSSIA

    For provisions governing the right to "social tenancy" of State-owned housing see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, §§ 20 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).

    Further, the Court reiterates that, irrespective of whether that judgment required the provision of a flat in the applicant's ownership or under a social tenancy agreement, such a court award constituted the applicant's "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, §§ 42 et seq., ECHR 2005 (extracts)), and the delayed enforcement constituted an interference with the rights guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Therefore, the complaint about the non-enforcement of the second judgment falls within the scope of both Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

  • EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 6558/06

    SAIDOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 35 et seq., ECHR 2005; Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, § 41 et seq., 9 June 2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Burdov, cited above, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III).

    However, the Court reiterates that it is not open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds or other resources, such as housing, as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 35, 16 June 2005; Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 23, 24 February 2005).

  • EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 9253/06

    MIZYUK v. RUSSIA

    The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 35 et seq., ECHR 2005; Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, § 41 et seq., 9 June 2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Burdov, cited above, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III).

    However, the Court reiterates that it is not open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds or other resources, such as housing, as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 35, 16 June 2005; Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 23, 24 February 2005).

  • EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 13910/04

    TARASOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 35 et seq., ECHR 2005; Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, § 41 et seq., 9 June 2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Burdov, cited above, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III).

    However, the Court reiterates that it is not open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds or other resources, such as housing, as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 35, 16 June 2005; Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 23, 24 February 2005).

  • EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 26089/02

    KORNEV v. RUSSIA

    The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 35 et seq., ECHR 2005; Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, § 41 et seq., 9 June 2005).

    However, the Court reiterates that it is not open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds or other resources, such as housing, as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 35, 16 June 2005; Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 23, 24 February 2005).

  • EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 35259/04

    KUKSA v. RUSSIA

    The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 35 et seq., ECHR 2005; Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, § 41 et seq., 9 June 2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Burdov, cited above, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III).

    However, the Court reiterates that it is not open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds or other resources, such as housing, as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 35, 16 June 2005; Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 23, 24 February 2005).

  • EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 29898/03

    GORLOVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03

    PRIDATCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 18967/07

    DAVYDOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 16967/10

    KALINKIN ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 3417/02

    LUPACESCU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 19.09.2013 - 42974/07

    GORFUNKEL v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 11093/07

    TARNOPOLSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 2746/05

    KOPNIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 10911/05

    PANCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 04.01.2012 - 68726/10

    BABENKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 23.03.2006 - 63501/00

    KONOVALOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 08.12.2005 - 7363/04

    MIKRYUKOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 50853/06

    KVAS?...EVSKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  • EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 42981/06

    MALIKOV AND OSHCHEPKOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 5941/06

    MISHURA AND GAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 25965/03

    KOKSHAROVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 11536/04

    SHEVCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 4596/02

    TAYANKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 24559/04

    TALYSHEVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 40753/07

    KOMNATSKYY v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 27114/04

    KHOTULEVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 32048/03

    BEZZOUBIKOVA c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 25971/03

    KOTSAR c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 22094/04

    FILONENKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 35077/02

    LICU c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 33459/04

    GALKIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 18557/06

    LYKOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.03.2007 - 3180/03

    ZHELEZNYAKOVY v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 21074/03

    MAKAROV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 12239/03

    BABYNIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 37032/03

    SHUBIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 13173/03

    GUDKOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 20.11.2008 - 39888/02

    SHAKIRZYANOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 23490/03

    KOSTENKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 2245/05

    SUBOCHEVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 34322/02

    CURARARU v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 18762/06

    TELYATYEVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 38103/05

    NEVOLIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 14656/03

    PONOMARENKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 75975/01

    DRAGUTA v. MOLDOVA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht