Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRSTIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Possessions) Pecuniary ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Krstic v. Serbia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 45394/06
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 45394/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 30132/04

  ILIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 45394/06

  Such a conclusion makes it unnecessary to determine whether a fair balance was struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of individual rights (see Iatridis c. Greece [GC], no 31107/96, § 58 and 62, ECHR 1999-II; Ambruosi v. Italy, no. 31227/96, §§ 28-34, 19 October 2000; and Ilic v. Serbia, no. 30132/04, § 75, 9 October 2007).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 45394/06

  The Court reiterates that a "claim" can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable - for example by virtue of a court judgment, an arbitration award or an administrative decision (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 28, ECHR 2002-III; Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 59, Series A no. 301-B; and Moskal v. Poland, no. 10373/05, § 45, 15 September 2009).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 45394/06

  From the ratification date onwards, however, the State's acts and omissions must conform to the Convention and its Protocols, meaning that all subsequent acts and omissions fall within the Court's jurisdiction even where they are merely extensions of an already existing situation (see, for example, YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 40, Series A no. 319-A, and Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I).

 
• EKMR, 08.09.1997 - 30229/96

  J. M.F. ET AUTRES contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 45394/06

  From the ratification date onwards, however, the State's acts and omissions must conform to the Convention and its Protocols, meaning that all subsequent acts and omissions fall within the Court's jurisdiction even where they are merely extensions of an already existing situation (see, for example, YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 40, Series A no. 319-A, and Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 07.06.2005 - 71186/01

  FUKLEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 45394/06

  As regards lawfulness, the States are under a positive obligation to ensure that the procedures enshrined in legislation governing the enforcement of final judgments are complied with (see Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 71186/01, § 91, 7 June 2005).
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 75951/01

  VIASU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 45394/06

  As the Court has held in a number of previous cases, the inability for a successful litigant to have a judgment or a final administrative decision rendered in his favour fully enforced, if that situation persists for a relatively long period of time, may constitute an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, in the sense of the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many authorities, Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 2191/03, 3104/03, 16094/03 and 24486/03, § 50, 21 June 2007; Burdov v. Russia, cited above, § 40; Ramadhi and Others v. Albania, no. 38222/02, §§ 76-77, 13 November 2007; and Viasu v. Roumania, no. 75951/01, § 60, 9 December 2008).
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 38222/02

  RAMADHI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 45394/06

  As the Court has held in a number of previous cases, the inability for a successful litigant to have a judgment or a final administrative decision rendered in his favour fully enforced, if that situation persists for a relatively long period of time, may constitute an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, in the sense of the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many authorities, Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 2191/03, 3104/03, 16094/03 and 24486/03, § 50, 21 June 2007; Burdov v. Russia, cited above, § 40; Ramadhi and Others v. Albania, no. 38222/02, §§ 76-77, 13 November 2007; and Viasu v. Roumania, no. 75951/01, § 60, 9 December 2008).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 45526/99

  GAYDUK ET AUTRES c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 45394/06

  45526/99 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, ECHR 2003-IX; and Cular v. Croatia, no. 55213/07, 22 April 2010).
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 44912/98

  KOPECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 45394/06

  In this respect, the Convention imposes no specific obligation on the Contracting States to provide redress for wrongs or damage caused prior to that date (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 38, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 55213/07

  CULAR v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 45394/06

  45526/99 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, ECHR 2003-IX; and Cular v. Croatia, no. 55213/07, 22 April 2010).
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03

  PRIDATCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 41760/04

  KOSTIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 45223/99

  RUDZINSKA v. POLAND