Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRAVCHUK v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KRAVCHUK c. RUSSIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 50705/11

  TODOROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  It thus considers that, in light of the nature of the violation found, a reopening of the domestic proceedings and a re-examination of the matter on the national level would constitute, in principle, an appropriate means to remedy the violation (see, mutatis mutandis, Gereksar and Others v. Turkey, nos. 34764/05 and 3 others, § 75, 1 February 2011; Kravchuk v. Russia, no. 10899/12, §§ 55-56, 26 November 2019; and Kostov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.
• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 265/17

  YORDANOV v. BULGARIA

  Rn. 147 The Court thus considers, as it did in Todorov and Others (cited above, § 322), that, in the light of the procedural character of the violation found, a reopening of the domestic proceedings and a re-examination of the matter at the national level would constitute, in principle, an appropriate means to remedy the violation (see, for similar solutions, Gereksar and Others v. Turkey, nos. 34764/05 and 3 others, § 75, 1 February 2011; Kravchuk v. Russia, no. 10899/12, §§ 55-56, 26 November 2019; and Kostov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.
• EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 66581/12

  KOSTOV v. BULGARIA

  In view of the above, reiterating that due to the deficiencies in the domestic assessment of the value of the first applicant's property it is unable to make its own assessment as to pecuniary damage, the Court finds that a reopening of the domestic proceedings, as discussed in the previous paragraph, would constitute, in principle, an appropriate means to remedy the violation (see Bistrović v. Croatia, no. 25774/05, § 58, 31 May 2007; Gereksar and Others v. Turkey, no. 34764/05 and 3 others, § 75, 1 February 2011; Kravchuk v. Russia, no. 10899/12, §§ 55-56, 26 November 2019).

• EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 8706/18

  OSMANI v. ALBANIA

  In the light of the procedural character of the violation found, the Court is unable to speculate about the correct amount of pecuniary damages and finds that a reopening of the domestic proceedings and a re-examination of the matter at the national level would constitute, in principle, the most appropriate means to remedy the violation (see, for similar approach, Gereksar and Others v. Turkey, nos. 34764/05 and 3 others, § 75, 1 February 2011; Kravchuk v. Russia, no. 10899/12, §§ 55-56, 26 November 2019; Kostov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.
• EGMR, 02.03.2021 - 47386/17

  OOO GASTRONOM c. RUSSIE

  En l'espèce, la Cour est d'avis que le moyen le plus approprié de remédier à la violation constatée serait un réexamen de l'action en indemnisation introduite au niveau interne par la société requérante (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Denisova et Moiseyeva c. Russie (satisfaction équitable), no 16903/03, § 14, 14 juin 2011, et, dernièrement, Kravchuk c. Russie, no 10899/12, §§ 55-56, 26 novembre 2019).
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 9945/18

  SHKREBKO c. RUSSIE

  Or il est de pratique constante de la Cour que les intérêts légitimes des tiers de bonne foi s'opposent en tout état de cause à un réexamen de l'affaire (Almeida Santos c. Portugal (satisfaction équitable), no 50812/06, §§ 11-12, 27 juillet 2010, et Bochan c. Ukraine (no 2) [GC], no 22251/08, §§ 57-58, CEDH 2015, et, a contrario, par exemple, Kravchuk c. Russie, no 10899/12, § 56, 26 novembre 2019), et ce, indépendamment de la forme que revêtira la décision de la Cour (décision de radiation ou arrêt de violation).
• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 24300/20

  SÀRL COUTTOLENC FRÈRES c. FRANCE

  Des objectifs légitimes « d'utilité publique'peuvent militer pour un remboursement inférieur à la pleine valeur marchande (voir, notamment, Kravchuk c. Russie, no 10899/12, § 40, 26 novembre 2019, Grainger et autres c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 34940/10, § 37, 10 juillet 2012, et James et autres c. Royaume-Uni, 21 février 1986, § 54, série A no 98).