Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CURARARU v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 34322/02

  But the delay must not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 74, ECHR 1999-V; and Prodan, cited above, § 53).
• EGMR, 07.07.2005 - 41302/02

  MALINOVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 34322/02

  The Court has already found, in cases similar to the present one where apartments owned by the State are given to persons on the basis of "social tenancy agreements", that "a 'claim' - even concerning a particular social benefit - can constitute a 'possession' within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable" (see Shpakovskiy v. Russia, no. 41307/02, § 33, 7 July 2005; Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, §§ 43 and 44, ECHR 2005-... (extracts) and Lozan and Others v. Moldova, no. 20567/02, § 39, 10 October 2006).
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 3417/02

  LUPACESCU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 34322/02

  3417/02, 5994/02, 28365/02, 5742/03, 8693/03, 31976/03, 13681/03, and 32759/03, 21 March 2006).
• EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 20567/02

  LOZAN AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 34322/02

  The Court has already found, in cases similar to the present one where apartments owned by the State are given to persons on the basis of "social tenancy agreements", that "a 'claim' - even concerning a particular social benefit - can constitute a 'possession' within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable" (see Shpakovskiy v. Russia, no. 41307/02, § 33, 7 July 2005; Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, §§ 43 and 44, ECHR 2005-... (extracts) and Lozan and Others v. Moldova, no. 20567/02, § 39, 10 October 2006).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 37811/04

  PANOV v. MOLDOVA

  The Government do not propose to award any pecuniary damage, having regard to the Court's relevant jurisprudence, notably its judgment in the case of Curararu v. Moldova, no. 34322/02, 9 October 2007, and as the applicant lives in State-provided accommodation (even though the accommodation does not meet the necessary conditions, and as a consequence we have undertaken through the judgment concerned to ensure that the applicant be provided with alternative suitable accommodation).