Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HUMBATOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 35178/97

  ANKARCRONA c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 13652/06

  Having regard to the absence of competing interests which could create difficulties, for example, in determining who is entitled to apply to the Court and in the light of the circumstances of the case as a whole, the applicant can, in the Court's opinion, reasonably claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, in so far as the impugned measures taken with regard to his company are concerned (see Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 30877/02

  NOSOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 13652/06

  To this effect, the Court notes that the sole owner of a company can claim to be a "victim" within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention in so far as the impugned measures taken with regard to his or her company are concerned (see Nosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30877/02, 20 October 2005).
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 33343/03

  TARVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 13652/06

  Whether such measures would involve restoring the applicant's right of use of the plot in question or providing him with an equivalent plot or, if this proves impossible, granting him reasonable compensation for non-enforcement, or a combination of these and other measures, is a decision that falls to the respondent State (see, mutandis mutadis, Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, § 66, 26 July 2007).

 
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 13652/06

  The Court reiterates that a property-related claim can constitute a "possession" if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 59, Series A no. 301-B).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 13652/06

  In this regard, the Court reiterates that the term "victim" in Article 34 of the Convention denotes the person directly affected by the act or omission which is at issue (see, for example, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51).
• EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 74826/01

  SHOFMAN CONTRE LA FEDERATION DE RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 13652/06

  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, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 13652/06

  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, that is to ensure compliance with the applicant's enforceable claim under the judgment of 31 May 2001 (compare with Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 142, ECHR 2005-...).

• EGMR, 22.09.2020 - 43301/07

  LVIN v. RUSSIA

  By finding a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case, the Court has established the Government's obligation to take appropriate measures to remedy the applicant's individual situation, that is to ensure compliance with the applicant's enforceable claim under the judgment of 9 April 2007 (see, for instance, Humbatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 13652/06, § 38, 3 December 2009, with further references).

  By finding a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case, the Court has established the Government's obligation to take appropriate measures to remedy the applicant's individual situation, that is to ensure compliance with the applicant's enforceable claim under the judgment of 9 April 2007 (see, for instance, Humbatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 13652/06, § 38, 3 December 2009, with further references).

• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 43301/07

  LVIN v. RUSSIA

  By finding a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case, the Court has established the Government's obligation to take appropriate measures to remedy the applicant's individual situation, that is to ensure compliance with the applicant's enforceable claim under the judgment of 9 April 2007 (see, for instance, Humbatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 13652/06, § 38, 3 December 2009, with further references).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 22764/12

  VANYUKOVA v. RUSSIA

  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, that is to ensure compliance with the applicant's enforceable claim under the judgment of 11 February 2004 (see, for instance, Humbatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 13652/06, § 38, 3 December 2009, with further references).