Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 38222/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,39680
EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 38222/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,39680)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13.11.2007 - 38222/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,39680)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13. November 2007 - 38222/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,39680)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,39680) 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

    RAMADHI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 1, Art. 46 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Violation of P1-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - financial awards (global) and Government to return the plot of land Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings Costs and expenses ...

  • Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte PDF

    (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

 
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 ... (24)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97

    BOTTAZZI c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 38222/02
    Subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the national authorities have the task of taking - retrospectively if needs be - (see among other authorities Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 233, ECHR 2006 and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 192, ECHR 2004-V; Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 22, ECHR 1999-V, Di Mauro v. Italy [GC], no. 34256/96, § 23, ECHR 1999-V) the necessary measures of redress in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity under the Convention, so that the Court does not have to reiterate its finding of a violation in a long series of comparable cases.
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34256/96

    DI MAURO c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 38222/02
    Subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the national authorities have the task of taking - retrospectively if needs be - (see among other authorities Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 233, ECHR 2006 and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 192, ECHR 2004-V; Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 22, ECHR 1999-V, Di Mauro v. Italy [GC], no. 34256/96, § 23, ECHR 1999-V) the necessary measures of redress in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity under the Convention, so that the Court does not have to reiterate its finding of a violation in a long series of comparable cases.
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

    COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 38222/02
    In addition, if one or more heads of damage cannot be calculated precisely or if the distinction between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage proves difficult, the Court may decide to make a global assessment (see Comingersoll v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

    GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 38222/02
    The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal; in this way it embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access constitutes one aspect (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 13-18, §§ 28-36; and Osman v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3166, § 136, and p. 3169, § 147).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

    LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 38222/02
    However, that margin of appreciation is not unlimited and its exercise is subject to review by the Convention institutions (see Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, pp. 50-51, §§ 121-22).
  • EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

    PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 38222/02
    The Court reiterates that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 comprises three distinct rules: the first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of the peaceful enjoyment of property; the second rule, contained in the second sentence of the first paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and subjects it to certain conditions; the third rule, stated in the second paragraph, recognises that the Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest (see, among other authorities, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, § 33, and Draon, cited above, § 69).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

    FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 38222/02
    Moreover, the outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the civil right in question (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 27, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 01.03.2002 - 48778/99

    KUTIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 38222/02
    While it is clear that in the instant case the applicants were not prevented from commencing proceedings for the recognition of their property rights under the Property Acts, that does not suffice, as the right of access to a court includes not only the right to institute proceedings but also the right to obtain a determination of the dispute by a court (see, mutatis mutandis, Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II; Lungoci v. Romania, no. 62710/00, § 35, 26 January 2006; and Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, § 68, 10 August 2006).
  • EGMR, 02.03.2004 - 48102/99

    SABIN POPESCU c. ROUMANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 38222/02
    The Court observes that in its established case-law it has examined the non-enforcement of a decision recognising title to property under the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III, JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 45, 6 March 2003; Sabin Popescu v. Romania, no. 48102/99, § 80, 2 March 2004; and Beshiri and Others, cited above, § 99).
  • EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 62710/00

    LUNGOCI c. ROUMANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 38222/02
    While it is clear that in the instant case the applicants were not prevented from commencing proceedings for the recognition of their property rights under the Property Acts, that does not suffice, as the right of access to a court includes not only the right to institute proceedings but also the right to obtain a determination of the dispute by a court (see, mutatis mutandis, Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II; Lungoci v. Romania, no. 62710/00, § 35, 26 January 2006; and Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, § 68, 10 August 2006).
  • EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

    YANAKIEV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 29381/09

    Homosexualität in Griechenland

    La Cour a également indiqué une date limite pour l'adoption des mesures nécessaires (Xenides-Arestis, précité, § 40, et Bourdov c. Russie (no 2), no 33509/04, § 141, CEDH 2009), ou affirmé leur « urgence'(Ramadhi et autres c. Albanie, no 38222/02, § 94, 13 novembre 2007).
  • EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 7564/07

    JELLA AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

    Hence, it considers the applicants' claim over that plot of land sufficiently established in domestic law to qualify as an enforceable "asset" under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Ramadhi and Others v. Albania, no. 38222/02, § 71, 13 November 2007).
  • EGMR, 03.03.2009 - 25862/03

    DENES ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

    Elle rappelle que selon sa jurisprudence constante, la non-exécution d'une décision reconnaissant un droit de propriété constitue une ingérence au sens de la première phrase du premier alinéa de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1, qui énonce le principe général du respect de la propriété (voir Bourdov c. Russie, no 59498/00, § 40, CEDH 2002-III, Ramadhi et 5 autres c. Albanie, no 38222/02, §§ 76-77, 13 novembre 2007).

    La Cour rappelle à cet égard que les Etats disposent d'une marge d'appréciation étendue pour déterminer ce qui est dans l'intérêt public, surtout lorsqu'il s'agit d'adopter et d'appliquer de mesures de reforme économique ou de justice sociale (Ramadhi et 5 autres c. Albanie, no 38222/02, § 79, 13 novembre 2007).

  • EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 22493/12

    KOKALARI v. ALBANIA

    Those proceedings were decisive for the determination of that claim of a civil nature (see Ramadhi and Others v. Albania, no. 38222/02, §§ 35-37, 13 November 2007).
  • EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 30383/03

    SIVOVA ET KOLEVA c. BULGARIE

    Afin de déterminer si un juste équilibre a été maintenu, la Cour doit en outre examiner si les délais pris par les autorités afin de restituer les terrains ou de verser une indemnisation n'ont pas fait supporter aux intéressées une charge disproportionnée (Naydenov, précité, § 79 ; Mutishev, précité, § 145 ; Ramadhi et autres c. Albanie, no 38222/02, § 83, 13 novembre 2007).
  • EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 75951/01

    VIASU c. ROUMANIE

    La Cour rappelle que selon sa jurisprudence constante, la non-exécution d'une décision reconnaissant un droit de propriété constitue une ingérence au sens de la première phrase du premier alinéa de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1, qui énonce le principe général du respect de la propriété (voir Burdov c. Russie, no 59498/00, § 40, CEDH 2002-III, Ramadhi et 5 autres c. Albanie, no 38222/02, §§ 76-77, 13 novembre 2007).
  • EGMR, 31.05.2022 - 73548/17

    X AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

    In the absence of any appeal by the Ministry, the Commissioner's decision of 22 September 2015 became final and enforceable (see paragraph 34 above, and, mutatis mutandis, Ramadhi and Others v. Albania, no. 38222/02, § 49, 13 November 2007 where the Court held that irrespective of whether the final decision to be executed takes the form of a court judgment or a decision by an administrative authority, domestic law as well as the Convention provides that it is to be enforced).
  • EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 7975/06

    KLAUS ET IOURI KILADZE c. GEORGIE

    Toutefois, une fois un défaut à caractère structurel identifié, il incombe aux autorités nationales, sous le contrôle du Comité des Ministres, de prendre, rétroactivement s'il le faut, les mesures de redressement nécessaires conformément au principe de subsidiarité de la Convention (voir, parmi d'autres, Broniowski, précité, §§ 192 et 193 ; Xenides-Arestis c. Turquie, no 46347/99, §§ 39 et 40, 22 décembre 2005 ; Ghigo c. Malte (satisfaction équitable), no 31122/05, §§ 25-28, 17 juillet 2008 ; Lukenda c. Slovénie, no 23032/02, §§ 89 et suivants, CEDH 2005-X ; Scordino c. Italie (no 1) [GC], no 36813/97, § 233, CEDH 2006), de manière que la Cour n'ait pas à réitérer son constat de violation dans une longue série d'affaires comparables (Driza c. Albanie, no 33771/02, § 123 in fine, CEDH 2007-... (extraits) ; Ramadhi et autres c. Albanie, no 38222/02, §§ 93 et 94, 13 novembre 2007 ; Gülmez c. Turquie, no 16330/02, §§ 62 et suivants, 20 mai 2008 ; Dybeku c. Albanie, no 41153/06, §§ 63 et 64, 18 décembre 2007).
  • EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 35355/08

    VELCHEVA v. BULGARIA

    In addition, the Court has held that the prolonged non-enforcement of a final court judgment giving rise to a "legitimate expectation" - and thus to a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - can be seen as problematic under that provision (see Ramadhi and Others v. Albania, no. 38222/02, §§ 76-77, 13 November 2007, and Mutishev and Others, cited above, § 125).
  • EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 45394/06

    KRSTIC v. SERBIA

    As the Court has held in a number of previous cases, the inability for a successful litigant to have a judgment or a final administrative decision rendered in his favour fully enforced, if that situation persists for a relatively long period of time, may constitute an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, in the sense of the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many authorities, Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 2191/03, 3104/03, 16094/03 and 24486/03, § 50, 21 June 2007; Burdov v. Russia, cited above, § 40; Ramadhi and Others v. Albania, no. 38222/02, §§ 76-77, 13 November 2007; and Viasu v. Roumania, no. 75951/01, § 60, 9 December 2008).
  • EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 6397/04

    BUSHATI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  • EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 18967/03

    MUTISHEV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  • EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 39740/03

    KARL GOTTFRIED SCHWARTZ ET HELMUT MARTIN SCHWARZ c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 14642/15

    DIMOV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 35720/04

    VRIONI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA AND ITALY

  • EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 12306/04

    NURI v. ALBANIA

  • EGMR - 49121/06

    [ENG]

  • EGMR - 37419/06

    [ENG]

  • EGMR - 1504/07

    [ENG]

  • EGMR - 58058/08 (anhängig)

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 6397/04

    BUSHATI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  • EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 2141/03

    VRIONI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  • EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 45264/04

    HAMZARAJ v. ALBANIA (No. 1)

  • EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 45265/04

    HAMZARAJ v. ALBANIA (NO. 2)

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