Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 46311/08, 2973/10 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2020,25858) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KOCHKINA AND KOCHKIN v. UKRAINE
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
KOCHKINY v. UKRAINE
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 2577/02
FOCIAC c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 46311/08
Moreover, the Court has held on numerous occasions that Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention provide for a positive obligation on the State to assist private persons in the enforcement of court judgments against other private persons (see Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 71186/01, §§ 84 and 91, 7 June 2005; Scollo v. Italy, cited above, § 44; Fociac v. Romania, no. 2577/02, § 70, 3 February 2005; and Kesyan v. Russia, no. 36496/02, §§ 79 and 80, 19 October 2006). - EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 36496/02
KESYAN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 46311/08
Moreover, the Court has held on numerous occasions that Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention provide for a positive obligation on the State to assist private persons in the enforcement of court judgments against other private persons (see Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 71186/01, §§ 84 and 91, 7 June 2005; Scollo v. Italy, cited above, § 44; Fociac v. Romania, no. 2577/02, § 70, 3 February 2005; and Kesyan v. Russia, no. 36496/02, §§ 79 and 80, 19 October 2006). - EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08
CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 46311/08
However, having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application, specifically the lengthy non-enforcement of the decision of 24 December 2002, and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references). - EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80
GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 46311/08
In particular, it is not enough for an applicant to claim that a particular place or property is a "home"; he or she must show that they enjoy concrete and persisting links with the property concerned (see, for example, Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 46, Series A no. 109). - EGMR, 07.06.2005 - 71186/01
FUKLEV v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 46311/08
Moreover, the Court has held on numerous occasions that Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention provide for a positive obligation on the State to assist private persons in the enforcement of court judgments against other private persons (see Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 71186/01, §§ 84 and 91, 7 June 2005; Scollo v. Italy, cited above, § 44; Fociac v. Romania, no. 2577/02, § 70, 3 February 2005; and Kesyan v. Russia, no. 36496/02, §§ 79 and 80, 19 October 2006).