Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SANDU AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Struck out of the list (Art. 37) Striking out applications-general;(Art. 37-1-a) Absence of intention to pursue application;(Art. 37-1-c) Continued examination not justified;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;No ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SANDU AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA and 7 other applications

  Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  As they did in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2016), the Russian Government expressed the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in Ilaşcu and Others (cited above), Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011), and Catan and Others (cited above) was wrong and at variance with public international law.

  My vote in the present case was based on my previous dissenting opinion in the case of Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, ECHR 2016) on the issue of the Russian Federation's effective control over Transdniestria.

• EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02

  Depalle ./. Frankreich - Brosset Triboulet u. a. ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  Recalling that the concept of "possessions" in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention has an autonomous meaning which is not limited to ownership of physical goods, but covers also certain other rights and interests constituting assets (see, in general, Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, § 73, ECHR 2016; see in particular, with respect to a "clientele" built up through the operation of an enterprise on a site leased by the entrepreneur, Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 1999-II), the Court considers that the right to use land, on the basis of rent contracts, connected to the conduct of a business, conferred on the applicant companies title to a substantive interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, among other authorities, Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 62, ECHR 2010, and Di Marco v. Italy, no. 32521/05, §§ 51-53, 26 April 2011).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  37685/10 and 22768/12, § 143, 20 March 2018).

• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  The Court reiterates that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention can be either "existing possessions" or assets, including claims in respect of which the applicant can argue that he or she has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised, that is, that he or she will obtain effective enjoyment of a property right (see, for example, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332; Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII; Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, c, ECHR 2004-IX; Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, § 50, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  The Court reiterates that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention can be either "existing possessions" or assets, including claims in respect of which the applicant can argue that he or she has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised, that is, that he or she will obtain effective enjoyment of a property right (see, for example, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332; Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII; Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, c, ECHR 2004-IX; Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, § 50, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos.
• VK Baden-Württemberg, 04.05.2011 - 1 VK 15/11

  Der verantwortliche Entscheidungsträger muss sich ermitteln lassen!

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  16/11/1986.
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see, among many other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98, and Fábián v. Hungary [GC], no. 78117/13, § 60, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 04.04.2003 - 19/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  19/02/1965.
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 55607/09

  H.P. v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  Circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, which require the continued examination of the application, exist when such examination would contribute to elucidating, safeguarding and developing the standards of protection under the Convention (see, for example, H.P. v. Denmark (dec.), no. 55607/09, § 85, 13 December 2016, and, a contrario, Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, § 90, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 52061/14

  POLOVYNKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention covers the situation where the applicant wishes to withdraw his or her application (see K.A.S. v. The United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38884/12, § 45, 4 June 2013, and Polovynko and Others v. Ukraine and Russia (dec.), no. 52061/14 and 3 others, § 10, 5 July 2016).
• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95
• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR - 34179/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 5629/03

  DIMITRESCU c. ROUMANIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 3599/18

  Keine Zuständigkeit für aus dem Ausland beantragtes humanitäres Visum, um nach …

  21034/05 and 7 others, §§ 36-38, 17 July 2018).
• EGMR, 20.05.2025 - 21660/18

  S.S. ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  L'obligation d'assurer dans une telle zone le respect des droits et libertés garantis par la Convention découle du fait de ce contrôle, qu'il s'exerce directement, par l'intermédiaire des forces armées de l'État ou par le biais d'une administration locale subordonnée (pour un résumé de jurisprudence relative à ces situations, voir Al-Skeini et autres, précité, §§ 138-140 et 142 ; pour des applications plus récentes de cette jurisprudence, voir Catan et autres, précité, §§ 121 et 122, Chiragov et autres c. Arménie [GC], no 13216/05, § 186, CEDH 2015, Mozer c. République de Moldova et Russie [GC], no 11138/10, §§ 110 et 111, 23 février 2016, et Sandu et autres c. République de Moldova et Russie, nos 21034/05 et 7 autres, §§ 36-38, 17 juillet 2018).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 30.05.2024 - C-406/22

  Ministerstvo vnitra České republiky, Odbor azylové a migrační politiky …

  {FN:88} Vgl. insbesondere EGMR, 8. Juli 2004, 11aşcu u. a./Moldau und Russland, CE:ECHR:2004:0708JUD004878799, §§ 335, 392 und 394; EGMR, 19. Oktober 2012, Catan/Moldau und Russland, CE:ECHR:2012:1019JUD004337004, §§ 109-110; EGMR, 23. Februar 2016, Mozer/Moldau und Russland, CE:ECHR:2016:0223JUD001113810, § 99; EGMR, 17. Juli 2018, Sandu u. a./Republik Moldau und Russland, CE:ECHR:2018:0717JUD002103405, §§ 34 bis 39.

• EGMR, 29.04.2025 - 63386/16

  MANSOURI c. ITALIE

  L'obligation d'assurer dans une telle zone le respect des droits et libertés garantis par la Convention découle du fait de ce contrôle, qu'il s'exerce directement, par l'intermédiaire des forces armées de l'État ou par le biais d'une administration locale subordonnée (pour un résumé de jurisprudence relative à ces situations, voir Al-Skeini et autres, précité, §§ 138-140 et 142 ; pour des applications plus récentes de cette jurisprudence, voir Catan et autres, précité, §§ 121-122, Chiragov et autres c. Arménie [GC], no 13216/05, § 186, CEDH 2015, Mozer c. République de Moldova et Russie [GC], no 11138/10, §§ 110-111, 23 février 2016, et Sandu et autres c. République de Moldova et Russie, nos 21034/05 et 7 autres, §§ 36-38, 17 juillet 2018).
• EGMR, 17.12.2024 - 18102/04

  TAGANOVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  In the light of this conclusion, and in accordance with its case-law, it is not necessary to determine whether or not Russia exercised detailed control over the policies and actions of the subordinate local administration (compare Sandu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 21034/05 and 7 others, § 89, 17 July 2018).
• EGMR, 02.07.2026 - 2697/15

  RUSSU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  It reiterates that the economic nature of the interests at stake is a valid reason for pursuing an application (see, for instance, Sandu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 21034/05 and 7 others, § 50, 17 July 2018).
• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 37715/13

  DE SOUSA MAGALHÃES ET SOUSA DE CASTRO SOARES c. PORTUGAL et 3 autres affaires

  En revanche, la Cour a considéré que l'espérance légitime de pouvoir continuer à exercer une activité commerciale, sur un terrain loué à cet effet, était suffisamment importante pour constituer un intérêt substantiel, donc un « bien'au sens de la norme exprimée dans la première phrase de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention (voir, notamment, Di Marco c. Italie (fond), no 32521/05, §§ 52-53, 26 avril 2011, et Sandu et autres c. République de Moldova et Russie, nos 21034/05 et 7 autres, § 77, 17 juillet 2018).
• EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 12999/15

  AVANESYAN v. ARMENIA

  21034/05 and 7 others, §§ 36-38, 17 July 2018; and M.N. v Belgium, cited above, § 103).
• EGMR - 2201/19 (anhängig)

  DRIUCENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA and 18 other applications

  2201/19, 29235/20, 29328/20, 7803/22, and 36501/22, has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was the interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it "necessary in a democratic society (see Sandu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 21034/05 and 7 others, §§ 72-84, 17 July 2018, and Eriomenco, cited above, §§ 75-85)?.
• EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 36545/06

  OPREA AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Since the facts of the case were similar with those in Sandu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (nos. 21034/05 and 7 others, 17 July 2018), the applicants invited the Court to find a breach of Article 1 of Protocol 1 in the same manner as it had done in that case.
• EGMR, 24.04.2025 - 63239/10

  NEAMTU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 12429/05

  [ENG]