Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CRAVCENCO v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 13+6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13+6-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (24)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 18882/02

  CROITORU v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 13012/02

  The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see Croitoru v. Moldova, no. 18882/02, § 35, 20 July 2004).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 13012/02

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 41431/98

  WIERCISZEWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 13012/02

  The Court reiterates that "although it is not in a position to analyse the quality of the case-law of the domestic courts, it considers that, since the remittal of cases for re-examination is usually ordered as a result of errors committed by lower courts, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings discloses a serious deficiency in the judicial system" (see Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003, and Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, § 51, 6 September 2005).

• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01

  PAVLYULYNETS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 13012/02

  The Court reiterates that "although it is not in a position to analyse the quality of the case-law of the domestic courts, it considers that, since the remittal of cases for re-examination is usually ordered as a result of errors committed by lower courts, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings discloses a serious deficiency in the judicial system" (see Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003, and Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, § 51, 6 September 2005).
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 19.07.2007 - 15/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 13012/02

  15/04/2008.
• EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 2577/02

  FOCIAC c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 13012/02

  While the right of access to court cannot oblige the State to enforce every judgment regardless of the circumstances of the case (see Fociac v. Romania, no. 2577/02, § 68, 3 February 2005), the inertia of the enforcement authorities in the process of enforcement engages the responsibility of the State (see Scollo v. Italy, judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 315-C, § 44, and Istrate v. Moldova, no. 53773/00, § 43, 13 June 2006).
• EGMR, 13.06.2006 - 53773/00

  ISTRATE v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 13012/02

  While the right of access to court cannot oblige the State to enforce every judgment regardless of the circumstances of the case (see Fociac v. Romania, no. 2577/02, § 68, 3 February 2005), the inertia of the enforcement authorities in the process of enforcement engages the responsibility of the State (see Scollo v. Italy, judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 315-C, § 44, and Istrate v. Moldova, no. 53773/00, § 43, 13 June 2006).
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 17709/04

  TOMLAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 13012/02

  However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings at the time (see Tomláková v. Slovakia, no. 17709/04, § 36, 5 December 2006).
• EGMR, 13.07.2004 - 55383/00

  GUZICKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 13012/02

  The Court considers that the domestic courts did not display the special diligence which was required of them under both the domestic law and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Guzicka v. Poland, no. 55383/00, § 30, 13 July 2004, and Orel v. Slovakia, no. 67035/01, § 58, 9 January 2007).
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 67035/01

  OREL v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 13012/02

  The Court considers that the domestic courts did not display the special diligence which was required of them under both the domestic law and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Guzicka v. Poland, no. 55383/00, § 30, 13 July 2004, and Orel v. Slovakia, no. 67035/01, § 58, 9 January 2007).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 34973/06

  [ENG]

  However, since all of these proceedings concern the same underlying issue (see, mutatis mutandis, Cravcenco v. Moldova, no. 13012/02, § 49, 15 January 2008), i.e. the deceased's estate, and are inextricably linked to each other, the Court shall also examine the conduct of the parallel civil proceedings between 3 March 2004 and 7 September 2010.
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 16000/10

  IALTEXGAL AURICA S.A. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  This amount is considerably below the amounts awarded by the Court in cases in which it has found a violation of Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Cravcenco v. Moldova, no. 13012/02, § 70, 15 January 2008) where the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3, 000 for excessive length of proceedings of more than nine years.
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 8252/08

  DADIANI AND MACHABELI v. GEORGIA

  It should be observed in that connection that even though it may be expected that an applicant undertake certain procedural steps in connection with the execution of a final judgment in his or her favour (Stoycheva, cited above, § 58), the inertia of the enforcement authorities in the process of enforcement engages the responsibility of the State (see Cravcenco v. Moldova, no. 13012/02, § 45, 15 January 2008; Mirzayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 50187/06, §§ 35-36, 3 December 2009, and Kirilova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 42908/98, 44038/98, 44816/98 and 7319/02, § 121, 9 June 2005).

• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 34469/05

  TRZASKALSKA v. POLAND

  In these circumstances, the Court is of the view that all three sets of proceedings relate to the same issue, namely the applicant's attempts to obtain compensation and that therefore their duration should be examined as a whole (Cravcenco v. Moldova, no. 13012/02, § 49, 15 January 2008; Boboc v. Moldova, no. 27581/04, § 27, 4 November 2008).
• EGMR, 09.10.2025 - 15666/18

  VATAGA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Rn. 17 In the leading case of Cravcenco v. Moldova (no. 13012/02, 15 January 2008) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 12030/13

  CIMPOES v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The general principles concerning the excessive length of proceedings have been summarised in Cravcenco v. Moldova, no. 13012/02, § 44, 15 January 2008).
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 26042/06

  VILOTIJEVIC v. SERBIA

  However, since all of these proceedings concern the same underlying issue (see, Cravcenco v. Moldova, no. 13012/02, § 49, 15 January 2008), namely, the applicant's reinstatement and compensation of damages in that respect, and are inextricably linked to each other, the Court shall also examine the conduct of the third set of civil proceedings between 3 March 2004 and 15 May 2008.
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 27516/04

  PANZARI v. MOLDOVA

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII and Cravcenco v. Moldova, no. 13012/02, § 44, 15 January 2008).
• EGMR, 25.09.2025 - 17185/15

  'ION DRAG' S.R.L. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Rn. 31 Dans les arrêts de principe Cravcenco c. Moldova, no 13012/02, 15 janvier 2008 et Cristea c. République de Moldova, no 35098/12, 12 février 2019, 1a Cour a conclu à la violation au sujet de questions similaires à celles qui font l'objet de la présente affaire.
• EGMR, 23.01.2025 - 5190/22

  DITMANSEN MÎNDRU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Rn. 15 Dans les arrêts de principe Cravcenco c. Moldova, no 13012/02, 15 janvier 2008, et Cristea c. République de Moldova, no 35098/12, 12 février 2019, 1a Cour a conclu à la violation au sujet de questions similaires à celles qui font l'objet de la présente affaire.
• EGMR, 16.01.2025 - 64990/16

  SUSCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 44964/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 19246/03

  MATEI AND TUTUNARU v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 17328/04

  DESERVIRE S.R.L. v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 24.04.2025 - 55148/21

  DANILIUC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 27.02.2025 - 39466/17

  LUCA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 21.11.2024 - 37190/19

  BORISOVA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 27875/08

  KILIBARDA v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 39321/06

  SAVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 31149/06

  JANJIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 27581/04

  BOBOC v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 44354/08

  SINEX D.O.O. v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 26654/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 26338/07

  IGNJEVSKI v. SERBIA