Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CLIONOV 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 ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95

  KREUZ c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 13229/04

  The Court refers to the general principles established in its case-law concerning access to a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and, more specifically, the requirement to pay court fees (see, among many authorities, Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 52-57, ECHR 2001-VI and the further references therein).
• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 35091/02

  MIKHAÏLENKI ET AUTRES c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 13229/04

  35091/02, 35196/02, 35201/02, 35204/02, 35945/02, 35949/02, 35953/02, 36800/02, 38296/02 and 42814/02, §§ 41-46, ECHR 2004-XII).
• EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 39745/02

  COOPERATIVA AGRICOLA SLOBOZIA-HANESEI v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 13229/04

  In view of the direct funding from the State budget and the extensive control over the NIVW's activity by the authorities, the Court considers that the State is to be held responsible for any debts incurred by the NIVW (see Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova, no. 39745/02, § 19, 3 April 2007, and Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 13229/04

  Where, however, domestic law provides for a right of appeal, the appeal proceedings will be treated as an extension of the trial process and accordingly will be subject to Article 6 (Delcourt v. Belgium, judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, § 25; Gurov v. Moldova, no. 36455/02, § 33, 11 July 2006).

• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 14323/13

  POMUL S.R.L. ET SUBERVIN S.R.L. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Constituée sous la forme d'une société par actions, la société débitrice se démarque de l'entreprise publique ou municipale, qui représente des formes juridiques historiques pour des personnes morales constituées et dirigées par le biais des autorités de l'État au sujet desquelles la Cour s'est déjà prononcée (voir Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei c. Moldova, no 39745/02, § 19, 3 avril 2007, Clionov c. Moldova, no 13229/04, § 29, 9 octobre 2007).
• EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 68334/01

  AGROMODEL OOD ET MIRONOV c. BULGARIE

  Par ailleurs, la Cour a déjà eu l'occasion de considérer qu'une interdiction générale d'accorder l'exonération de paiement des taxes judiciaires pose en soi un problème sous l'angle de l'article 6 § 1 (voir Paykar Yev Haghtanak Ltd c. Arménie, no 21638/03, § 49, 20 décembre 2007 ; voir aussi, mutatis mutandis, Clionov c. Moldova, no 13229/04, §§ 41 et 42, 9 octobre 2007).
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 24219/05

  TROPOTEL c. MOLDOVA

  La Cour a établi dans un certain nombre d'affaires, dont celles dirigées contre la Moldova, sa pratique en ce qui concerne les griefs tirés de la violation du droit d'accès au tribunal (voir, par exemple, Istrate c. Moldova (no 2), no 28790/03, § 19, 10 juin 2008 ; Clionov c. Moldova, no 13229/04, § 41, 9 octobre 2007 ; Tudor-Comert c. Moldova, no 27888/04, § 38, 4 novembre 2008).

 
• EGMR - 10620/06

  [ENG]

  The relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been set out in Clionov v. Moldova (no. 13229/04, § 21, 9 October 2007).
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 19042/06

  CHISTOL v. MOLDOVA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Moldova, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning access to a court (see, for example, Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 52-57, ECHR 2001-VI, Malahov v. Moldova, no. 32268/02, §§ 25-36, 7 June 2007, Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, §§ 90-96, 19 June 2007, Clionov v. Moldova, no. 13229/04, §§ 35-42, 9 October 2007, and Tudor-Comert v. Moldova, no. 27888/04, §§ 32-42, 4 November 2008).
• EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 246/05

  SMOLEI v. MOLDOVA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Moldova, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning access to a court (see, for example, Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 52-57, ECHR 2001-VI, Malahov v. Moldova, no. 32268/02, §§ 25-36, 7 June 2007, Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, §§ 90-96, 19 June 2007, Clionov v. Moldova, no. 13229/04, §§ 35-42, 9 October 2007, and Tudor-Comert v. Moldova, no. 27888/04, §§ 32-42, 4 November 2008).