Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VENERA-NORD-VEST BORTA A.G. v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Government's request for a strike-out rejected Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 37453/97

  AKMAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2007 - 31535/03

  On the facts and for the reasons set out above, the Court finds that the Government have failed to submit a statement offering a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see, by contrast, Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 37453/97, §§ 23-24, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 60115/00

  Meinungsfreiheit von Rechtsanwälten bei der öffentlichen Kritik von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2007 - 31535/03

  The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Amihalachioaie v. Moldova, no. 60115/00, § 47, ECHR 2004-III).
• EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 19253/03

  MACOVEI AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2007 - 31535/03

  Such a proposal therefore cannot be considered appropriate redress or as a basis on which to strike an application out of the list of cases (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-VII and Macovei and Others v. Moldova, nos. 19253/03, 17667/03, 31960/03, 19263/03, 17695/03 and 31761/03, § 36 and 37, 25 April 2006).

• EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 16999/02

  KAPITONOVS v. LATVIA

  However, as it has stated in earlier cases (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 74, ECHR 2003-VI, and Venera-Nord-Vest Borta A.G. v. Moldova, no. 31535/03, § 28, 13 February 2007), a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, declarations made in the context of strictly confidential friendly settlement proceedings (Article 38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court) and, on the other hand, unilateral declarations made by a respondent Government in public and adversarial proceedings before the Court.
• EGMR, 09.09.2008 - 12037/03

  OZOLINS v. LATVIA

  However, as it has stated in earlier cases (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 74, ECHR 2003-VI, and Venera-Nord-Vest Borta A.G. v. Moldova, no. 31535/03, § 28, 13 February 2007), a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, declarations made in the context of strictly confidential friendly settlement proceedings (Article 38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court) and, on the other hand, unilateral declarations made by a respondent Government in public and adversarial proceedings before the Court.
• EGMR, 02.09.2008 - 6904/02

  BORISOVS v. LATVIA

  However, as it has stated in earlier cases (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 74, ECHR 2003-VI, and Venera-Nord-Vest Borta A.G. v. Moldova, no. 31535/03, § 28, 13 February 2007), a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, declarations made in the context of strictly confidential friendly settlement proceedings (Article 38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court) and, on the other hand, unilateral declarations made by a respondent Government in public and adversarial proceedings before the Court.

 
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 6301/05

  THE ESTATE OF NITSCHKE v. SWEDEN

  However, as it has stated in earlier cases (see in particular Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, § 74, ECHR 2003, and Venera-Nord-Vest Borta A.G. v. Moldova, no. 31535/03, § 28, 13 February 2007), a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, declarations made in the context of strictly confidential friendly settlement proceedings (Article 38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court) and, on the other hand, unilateral declarations made by a respondent Government in public and adversarial proceedings before the Court.
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 77546/12

  IMPERIALEX GRUP S.R.L. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Dès lors, la Cour rejette la demande d'allouer le montant de 1 752 170 MDL, accordé par la décision définitive du 10 novembre 2011 (voir, a contrario, Venera-Nord-Vest Borta A.G. c. République de Moldova, no 31535/03, § 48, 13 février 2007).
• EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 32734/03

  POZNAKOVS v. LATVIA

  However, as it has stated in earlier cases (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 74, ECHR 2003-VI, and Venera-Nord-Vest Borta A.G. v. Moldova, no. 31535/03, § 28, 13 February 2007), a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, declarations made in the context of strictly confidential friendly settlement proceedings (Article 38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court) and, on the other hand, unilateral declarations made by a respondent Government in public and adversarial proceedings before the Court.
• EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 29254/05

  PETROVS v. LATVIA

  However, as it has stated in earlier cases (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 74, ECHR 2003-VI, and Venera-Nord-Vest Borta A.G. v. Moldova, no. 31535/03, § 28, 13 February 2007), a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, declarations made in the context of strictly confidential friendly settlement proceedings (Article 38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court) and, on the other hand, unilateral declarations made by a respondent Government in public and adversarial proceedings before the Court.
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 4044/02

  SUTOVS v. LATVIA

  However, as it has stated in earlier cases (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 74, ECHR 2003-VI, and Venera-Nord-Vest Borta A.G. v. Moldova, no. 31535/03, § 28, 13 February 2007), a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, declarations made in the context of strictly confidential friendly settlement proceedings (Article 38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court) and, on the other hand, unilateral declarations made by a respondent Government in public and adversarial proceedings before the Court.
• EGMR, 05.05.2009 - 2233/03

  DOBROVOLSKIS v. LATVIA

  However, as it has stated in earlier cases (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 74, ECHR 2003-VI, and Venera-Nord-Vest Borta A.G. v. Moldova, no. 31535/03, § 28, 13 February 2007), a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, declarations made in the context of strictly confidential friendly settlement proceedings (Article 38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court) and, on the other hand, unilateral declarations made by a respondent Government in public and adversarial proceedings before the Court.
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 12569/03

  PANASENKOVS v. LATVIA

  However, as it has stated in earlier cases (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 74, ECHR 2003-VI, and Venera-Nord-Vest Borta A.G. v. Moldova, no. 31535/03, § 28, 13 February 2007), a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, declarations made in the context of strictly confidential friendly settlement proceedings (Article 38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court) and, on the other hand, unilateral declarations made by a respondent Government in public and adversarial proceedings before the Court.