Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 11536/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,31887) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SHEVCHENKO v. RUSSIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings Article 6-1 - Access to court) No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Shevchenko v. Russia
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 8415/02
METAXAS c. GRECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 11536/04
It has been the Court's constant position that a person who has obtained a judgment against the State may not be expected to bring separate enforcement proceedings (see Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004). - EGMR, 07.07.2005 - 41302/02
MALINOVSKIY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 11536/04
The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicant's claim was sufficiently established to constitute a "possession" falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, in so far as relevant, Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, §§ 45-46, ECHR 2005 VII (extracts)). - EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 30616/05
AKASHEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 11536/04
This is particularly relevant in a situation where, in view of the complexities and possible overlapping of the execution and enforcement procedures, an applicant may have reasonable doubts about which authority is responsible for the execution or enforcement of the judgment (see Akashev v. Russia, no. 30616/05, § 21, 12 June 2008, and Burdov (no. 2), cited above, § 68). - EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87
RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 11536/04
Turning to the Government's submission that the judgment debt in the applicant's case did not amount to a "possession", the Court reiterates that to constitute an "asset" or "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and, consequently, to attract the guarantees of this provision, a claim, for example, a judgment debt, should be sufficiently established to be enforceable (see, among other authorities, Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 35 et seq., ECHR 2004-IX, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 59, Series A no. 301 B).