Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TARVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 33343/03

  By finding a violation of Article 6 § 1 in the present case, the Court has established the Government's obligation to take appropriate measures to remedy the applicant's individual situation, i.e. ensure the compliance with the applicant's enforceable claim under the judgment of 20 August 2001 (compare with Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 142, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 74826/01

  SHOFMAN CONTRE LA FEDERATION DE RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 33343/03

  In general, it is primarily for the State concerned to choose the means to be used in its domestic legal order in order to discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention (see Shofman v. Russia, no. 74826/01, § 53, 24 November 2005, with further references).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 33343/03

  The Court further emphasises that the domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR-XI).

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 33343/03

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 33343/03

  Moreover, the outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the civil right in question (see, for example, Stojakovic v. Austria, no. 30003/02, § 38, 9 November 2006, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 27, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 33343/03

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 43726/02

  KANAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 33343/03

  At the outset, the Court notes that, even if the complaint concerns only lengthy non-enforcement of a final judgment as in the present case, the Court will examine whether Article 6 § 1 applies to the "trial" resulting in that judgment, because the ensuing enforcement proceedings must be regarded as an integral part of that "trial" (see Kanayev v. Russia, no. 43726/02, § 19, 27 July 2006; see also paragraph 58 below).
• EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 40368/02

  KAZIMOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 33343/03

  The Court recalls that it is only competent to examine complaints of violations of the Convention arising from events that have occurred after the Convention had entered into force with respect to the High Contracting Party concerned (see, for example, Kazimova v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 40368/02, 6 March 2003).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 30003/02

  STOJAKOVIC v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 33343/03

  Moreover, the outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the civil right in question (see, for example, Stojakovic v. Austria, no. 30003/02, § 38, 9 November 2006, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 27, ECHR 2000-VII).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 30723/09

  KRNDIJA v. SERBIA

  37270/11, §§ 105-06, 15 October 2013; Shlepkin v. Russia, no. 3046/03, § 25, 1 February 2007; Cone, cited above, § 27, 24 June 2008; and Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, §§ 50-52, 26 July 2007; compare and contrast with cases where the debtors were private individuals, Omerović v. Croatia, no. 36071/03, § 35, 1 June 2006; Necheporenko and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], nos.

  The Court has not considered so far that the abolition of the post or a relevant department/company itself in a socially/State/-owned company/public body necessarily make a judgment objectively impossible to enforce (see, in the context of public institutions/companies, Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, 26 July 2007; Akhundov v. Azerbaijan, no. 39941/07, 3 February 2011; and Efendiyeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 31556/03, 25 October 2007), although it may be ready to accept argument that enforcement is impossible in certain circumstances (see Bobić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 26529/10, 3 May 2012, where the socially-owned company was privatised and the Government had been ordered to pay compensation to the applicant for every working day until reinstatement).

• EGMR, 22.09.2020 - 43301/07

  LVIN v. RUSSIA

  The decision on appropriate measures to enforce the judicial award, or, if this proves impossible, granting the applicant reasonable compensation, or a combination of these and other measures, falls to the respondent State (see, mutandis mutadis, Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, § 66, 26 July 2007).

  The decision on appropriate measures to enforce the judicial award, or, if this proves impossible, granting the applicant's heir Ms Yelena Vadimovna Lvina reasonable compensation, or a combination of these and other measures, falls to the respondent State (see, mutandis mutadis, Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, § 66, 26 July 2007).

• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 43301/07

  LVIN v. RUSSIA

  The decision on appropriate measures to enforce the judicial award, or, if this proves impossible, granting the applicant reasonable compensation, or a combination of these and other measures, falls to the respondent State (see, mutandis mutadis, Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, § 66, 26 July 2007).

• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 22764/12

  VANYUKOVA v. RUSSIA

  In this connection, the Court considers that a decision on appropriate measures to enforce the judicial award, or, if this proves impossible, granting the applicant reasonable compensation, or a combination of these and other measures, falls to the respondent State (see, mutandis mutadis, Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, § 66, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 50187/06

  MIRZAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Even if the applicant had brought a complaint against the State and obtained a decision confirming that the failure to enforce the judgment of 23 December 2003 had been unlawful in domestic terms, such an action would only have produced the same results, the only outcome being confirmation of the judgment's legal force enabling the enforcement officers to proceed with the enforcement of the judgment of 23 December 2003 (see, mutatis mutandis, Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, § 47, 26 July 2007 and Yavorivskaya v. Russia (dec.), no. 34687/02, 13 May 2004).
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 38798/07

  [ENG]

  Even if the domestic courts in the pending proceedings had ruled in favour of the applicant and decided that the failure to enforce the judgment of 20 April 1998 had been unlawful in domestic terms, such decision would only have produced the same results, the only outcome being confirmation of the judgment's legal force enabling the enforcement officers to proceed with the enforcement proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, § 47, 26 July 2007 and Yavorivskaya v. Russia (dec.), no. 34687/02, 13 May 2004).
• EGMR - 2632/09 (anhängig)

  JOVANOVIC v. SERBIA and 3 other applications

  Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, does the failure to enforce final and enforceable judgements/decisions, including the requirement to reinstate, in the applicants' favour amount to a violation of one or both of these provisions (see, for example, Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, 26 July 2007; Akhundov v. Azerbaijan, no. 39941/07, 3 February 2011, Efendiyeva v. Azerbaijan (just satisfaction), no. 31556/03, 11 December 2008)?.
• EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 35935/02

  CONE c. ROUMANIE

  Dans une seconde affaire, elle a rejeté l'exception tirée du délai de six mois, ayant constaté que le jugement définitif en cause était encore en vigueur et demeurait inexécuté, et noté subsidiairement que les autorités avaient continué les démarches en vue de l'exécution du jugement (Tarverdiyev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 33343/03, §§ 50 à 52, 26 juillet 2007).
• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 36539/08

  SHMATOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Whether this involves taking measures set out in the judgment, or, if this is not possible, granting them reasonable compensation, or a combination of these and other measures, is a decision that falls to the respondent State (see Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, § 66, 26 July 2007, and Ursan v. Romania, no. 35852/04, § 46, 6 April 2010).
• EGMR, 28.03.2019 - 3225/10

  AHMADOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  However, the Court does not consider it necessary to rule on the merits of this complaint because Article 6 is lex specialis in regard to this part of the application (see, for example, Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, § 62, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 3360/03

  CHIS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 26553/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.05.2018 - 31732/08

  RAMIKHANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 8019/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 50757/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 17276/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 31556/03

  EFENDIYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 04.07.2024 - 21051/10

  MAÇI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 35852/04

  URSAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 13652/06

  HUMBATOV v. AZERBAIJAN