Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRBEC AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Struck out of the list (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1179/04

  YEREMENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 10315/22

  The Government offered to jointly pay the applicants, Ferdinando Busetto and Federico Silvio Busetto, heirs of Tiziana SARTORE, 40% of the sums awarded by judgment no. 274/05 of the Vicenza District Court, R.G. 1171/04, 1175/04, 1177/04, 1179/04, 1211/04, 1219/04, 28/08/2005 and which the applicants returned, provided that they give proof of the restitution.
• EGMR, 11.03.2008 - 918/04

  KAFKA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 10315/22

  The Government offered to jointly pay the applicants, Ferdinando Busetto and Federico Silvio Busetto, heirs of Tiziana SARTORE, 40% of the sums awarded by judgment no. 274/05 of the Vicenza District Court, R.G. 1171/04, 1175/04, 1177/04, 1179/04, 1211/04, 1219/04, 28/08/2005 and which the applicants returned, provided that they give proof of the restitution.
• KAG Aachen, 08.08.2006 - 15/06

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 10315/22

  15/06/2023.

 
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 18369/07

  JOSIPOVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 10315/22

  Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 52888/08

  DE ROSA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 10315/22

  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law against Italy emphasising that the adoption of Law no. 266/2005 which definitively and retroactively settled the merits of the pending dispute between the applicants and the State and rendered futile any continuation of the proceedings was not justified by overriding reasons of general interest (see, for example, Cicero and Others v. Italy, nos. 29483/11 and 4 others, §§ 31-33, 30 January 2020; De Rosa and Others v. Italy, nos. 52888/08 and 13 others, §§ 48-54, 11 December 2012; and Agrati and Others v. Italy, nos. 43549/08, 6107/09 and 5087/09, §§ 59-66, 7 June 2011).
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 29483/11

  CICERO AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 10315/22

  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law against Italy emphasising that the adoption of Law no. 266/2005 which definitively and retroactively settled the merits of the pending dispute between the applicants and the State and rendered futile any continuation of the proceedings was not justified by overriding reasons of general interest (see, for example, Cicero and Others v. Italy, nos. 29483/11 and 4 others, §§ 31-33, 30 January 2020; De Rosa and Others v. Italy, nos. 52888/08 and 13 others, §§ 48-54, 11 December 2012; and Agrati and Others v. Italy, nos. 43549/08, 6107/09 and 5087/09, §§ 59-66, 7 June 2011).
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 82/02

  ERDEM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 10315/22

  The Government offered not to proceed with the recovery of 40% of the sums paid to the applicants, Natasa Grbec and Michel Grbec, heirs of Claudio GRBEC, in execution of judgment no. 173/04 of the Trieste District Court, R.G. 82/02, 04/05/2004.