Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KUKALO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1 and P1-1 (as regards the enforcement of one judgment) Violation of Art. 6-1 and P1-1 (as regards the enforcement of other judgments) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 63995/00
• EGMR, 03.11.2005 - 63995/00

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 36677/97

  S.A. DANGEVILLE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2005 - 63995/00

  However, pecuniary assets, such as debts, by virtue of which the applicant can claim to have at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a particular pecuniary asset may also fall within the notion of "possessions" contained in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31, and, mutatis mutandis, S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, §§ 44-48, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2005 - 63995/00

  However, pecuniary assets, such as debts, by virtue of which the applicant can claim to have at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a particular pecuniary asset may also fall within the notion of "possessions" contained in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31, and, mutatis mutandis, S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, §§ 44-48, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2005 - 63995/00

  However, pecuniary assets, such as debts, by virtue of which the applicant can claim to have at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a particular pecuniary asset may also fall within the notion of "possessions" contained in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31, and, mutatis mutandis, S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, §§ 44-48, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2005 - 63995/00

  In particular, the Court has consistently held that a "claim" - even to 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 Burdov v. Russia, cited above, § 40, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 84, § 59).

• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  Nor is it open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds or other resources (such as housing) as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Burdov, cited above, § 35, and Kukalo v. Russia, no. 63995/00, § 49, 3 November 2005).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05

  GERASIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, the applicants received, by virtue of the judgments in their favour, a "legitimate expectation" to acquire a pecuniary asset, which was sufficiently established to constitute a "possession" falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, §§ 45-50, 30 June 2005; Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 46, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts); Kukalo v. Russia, no. 63995/00, § 61, 3 November 2005; and Sypchenko v. Russia, no. 38368/04, § 45, 1 March 2007).
• EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 43422/07

  ARNABOLDI c. ITALIE

  Finally, in this context, the Court has confirmed that it is not open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds or other resources as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002-II, Kukalo v. Russia, no. 63995/00, § 49, 3 November 2005 and Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), cited above, § 70).

 
• EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 17739/09

  BOZZA c. ITALIE

  Son obligation de coopérer ne doit toutefois pas excéder ce qui est strictement nécessaire à l'exécution de la décision et, quoi qu'il en soit, elle n'exonère pas l'administration de l'obligation d'agir de sa propre initiative et dans les délais prévus (Akachev, précité, § 22, Bourdov, précité, § 35, et Koukalo c. Russie, no 63995/00, § 49, 3 novembre 2005), notamment en organisant son système judiciaire (voir, mutatis mutandis, Comingersoll S.A. c. Portugal [GC], no 35382/97, § 24, CEDH 2000-IV, et Frydlender c. France [GC], no 30979/96, § 45, CEDH 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 35016/03

  SALIYEV v. RUSSIA

  The municipal bodies are formed by the local population; they have wide-ranging powers in various areas of life, examples of which can be found in the Court's case-law concerning Russia (see, for example, Kimlya and Others v. Russia, nos. 76836/01 and 32782/03, § 53, ECHR 2009-...; Kuimov v. Russia, no. 32147/04, § 30, 8 January 2009; and Kukalo v. Russia, no. 63995/00, § 33, 3 November 2005).
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 15974/07

  DRUJCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The Court reiterates that a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002-III, Kukalo v. Russia, no. 63995/00, §§ 51-52, 3 November 2005).
• EGMR, 29.06.2010 - 20947/05

  GIETER-NIKIEL v. POLAND

  The Court further reiterates that a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002-III, Kukalo v. Russia, no. 63995/00, §§ 51-52, 3 November 2005).
• EGMR, 08.09.2009 - 39561/03

  LIS v. POLAND

  The Court further observes that a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002-III, Kukalo v. Russia, no. 63995/00, §§ 51-52, 3 November 2005).
• EGMR, 15.03.2007 - 3180/03

  ZHELEZNYAKOVY v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002-III, Kukalo v. Russia, no. 63995/00, §§ 51-52, 3 November 2005).