Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CEREALE FLOR S.A. AND ROSCA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) ...

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 6923/03

  MELNIC v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 24042/09

  Such a decision will, however, depend on the particular circumstances of whether the unilateral declaration offers a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI, Melnic v. Moldova, no. 6923/03, § 22, 14 November 2006, and Jeronovičs v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 64, ECHR 2016).

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to those in the present application (see Popov (no.2), cited above, §§ 52-58, 6 December 2005; Oferta Plus SRL v. Moldova, no. 14385/04, §§ 104-07 and 112-15, 19 December 2006; Melnic v. Moldova, no. 6923/03, §§ 38-44, 14 November 2006; and Istrate v. Moldova, no. 53773/00, §§ 46-61, 13 June 2006).

• EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 24042/09

  Aspects that may be taken into account include the company's reputation, uncertainty in planning, disruption in the management of the company (for which there is no precise method of calculating the consequences) and lastly, albeit to a lesser degree, the anxiety and inconvenience caused to the members of the management team (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 35, ECHR 2000-IV, and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 221, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 24042/09

  Aspects that may be taken into account include the company's reputation, uncertainty in planning, disruption in the management of the company (for which there is no precise method of calculating the consequences) and lastly, albeit to a lesser degree, the anxiety and inconvenience caused to the members of the management team (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 35, ECHR 2000-IV, and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 221, ECHR 2012).

• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 14385/04

  Rechte, die praktisch und wirksam sind

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 24042/09

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to those in the present application (see Popov (no.2), cited above, §§ 52-58, 6 December 2005; Oferta Plus SRL v. Moldova, no. 14385/04, §§ 104-07 and 112-15, 19 December 2006; Melnic v. Moldova, no. 6923/03, §§ 38-44, 14 November 2006; and Istrate v. Moldova, no. 53773/00, §§ 46-61, 13 June 2006).
• EGMR, 13.06.2006 - 53773/00

  ISTRATE v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 24042/09

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to those in the present application (see Popov (no.2), cited above, §§ 52-58, 6 December 2005; Oferta Plus SRL v. Moldova, no. 14385/04, §§ 104-07 and 112-15, 19 December 2006; Melnic v. Moldova, no. 6923/03, §§ 38-44, 14 November 2006; and Istrate v. Moldova, no. 53773/00, §§ 46-61, 13 June 2006).
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 7365/05

  DECEV v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 24042/09

  The Court is of the opinion that this principle is also applicable in cases such as the present ones, where a Government seeks to obtain strike-out decisions by means of unilateral declarations (Decev v. Moldova (no. 2), no. 7365/05, § 18, 24 February 2009).
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 26528/03

  KOLOBOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 24042/09

  The Court observes that it has found in the past that domestic court decisions awarding no compensation in the absence of a claim or awarding only a part of the sum claimed in compensation corresponding to the evidence submitted to them, could be accepted as offering sufficient redress (see, for instance, Vladimir Kolobov v. Russia (dec.), no. 26528/03, 28 June 2011).
• EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 19960/04

  POPOV v. MOLDOVA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 24042/09

  The relevant domestic law concerning the revision of a final judgment is set out in Popov v. Moldova (no. 2) (no. 19960/04, §§ 27-29, 6 December 2005) and Jomiru and Creţu v. Moldova, (no. 28430/06, §§ 26-27, 17 April 2012).
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 44746/08

  BALAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 24042/09

  Further details of the law are set out in the Court's decision in Balan v. Moldova ((dec.), no. 44746/08, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 28430/06

  JOMIRU ET CRETU c. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 24042/09

  The relevant domestic law concerning the revision of a final judgment is set out in Popov v. Moldova (no. 2) (no. 19960/04, §§ 27-29, 6 December 2005) and Jomiru and Creţu v. Moldova, (no. 28430/06, §§ 26-27, 17 April 2012).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 7359/06

  AGURDINO S.R.L. AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND 25 OTHER CASES

  24042/09+.
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 27773/05

  [ENG]

  En ce qui concerne le préjudice matériel que la société requérante dit avoir subi à la suite de l'annulation de la décision de substitution et du titre exécutoire, la Cour relève que le titre exécutoire n'a pas été exécuté et l'article 449 h) du code de procédure civile permet la révision d'un procès sur le plan interne lorsqu'elle-même a constaté la violation de droits et libertés fondamentaux d'un requérant (Cereale Flor S.A. et Roşca c. République de Moldova, nos 24042/09 et 3159/10, § 54, 14 février 2017).
• EGMR, 02.04.2026 - 24284/15

  RUTA-PRIM S.R.L. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Par ailleurs, elle relève que l'article 449 h) du code de procédure civile permet la révision d'un procès sur le plan interne lorsqu'elle a constaté la violation de droits et libertés fondamentaux d'un requérant (Cereale Flor S.A. et Roşca c. République de Moldova, nos 24042/09 et 3159/10, § 54, 14 février 2017).
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 50886/08

  ICHIM c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a traité des affaires soulevant des questions semblables à celle de la présente espèce et qu'elle a conclu à la violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention et de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Popov c. République de Moldova (no 2), no 19960/04, §§ 52-58, 6 décembre 2005, et Cereale Flor S.A. et Roşca c. République de Moldova, no 24042/09 et 3159/10, §§ 45-47, 14 février 2017).