Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NAZARETIAN v. GEORGIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 41510/98

  JASIUNIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 13909/06

  The circumstances of the case do not suggest that there existed any other objective reason, independent of the bailiffs" conduct, for the alleged ineffectiveness of the enforcement proceedings (cf., a contrario, JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 41510/98, 24 October 2000; Amat-G Ltd and Mebaghishvili v. Georgia, no. 2507/03, §§ 37-40, ECHR 2005-VIII; IZA Ltd and Makrakhidze v. Georgia, no. 28537/02, §§ 31-37, 27 September 2005).
• EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 1086/02

  DZIZIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 13909/06

  Thus, she could have requested redress for the damage done either by the allegedly arbitrary discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings in May 2001 or the bailiffs" refusal to locate the debtors" whereabouts (cf. Dzizin v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 1086/02, 24 June 2003; Kukta v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 19443/03, 22 November 2005).
• EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 2507/03

  AMAT-G LTD AND MEBAGISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 13909/06

  The circumstances of the case do not suggest that there existed any other objective reason, independent of the bailiffs" conduct, for the alleged ineffectiveness of the enforcement proceedings (cf., a contrario, JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 41510/98, 24 October 2000; Amat-G Ltd and Mebaghishvili v. Georgia, no. 2507/03, §§ 37-40, ECHR 2005-VIII; IZA Ltd and Makrakhidze v. Georgia, no. 28537/02, §§ 31-37, 27 September 2005).
• EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 19443/03

  KUKTA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 13909/06

  Thus, she could have requested redress for the damage done either by the allegedly arbitrary discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings in May 2001 or the bailiffs" refusal to locate the debtors" whereabouts (cf. Dzizin v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 1086/02, 24 June 2003; Kukta v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 19443/03, 22 November 2005).

• EGMR, 16.11.2010 - 46365/06

  BAGHATURIA v. GEORGIA

  The Court recalls that where a judgment debt is against a private person, and the main alleged cause of the non-enforcement is the bailiffs" conduct, it is appropriate to bring proceedings against those bailiffs to give the State a chance to put matters right internally (see, for example, Nazaretian v. Georgia (dec.), no. 13909/06, 7 July 2009; Samoylenko and Polonska v. Ukraine, no. 6566/05, § 25, 18 December 2008; Tishkevich v. Russia, no. 2202/05, § 17, 4 December 2008).