Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 15.06.2017 - 66328/12 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DNGIKYAN v. ARMENIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);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)
DNGIKYAN v. ARMENIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 40450/04
YURIY NIKOLAYEVICH IVANOV v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2017 - 66328/12
An unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may therefore breach the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 65, ECHR 2009; and Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, §§ 50-53, 15 October 2009).The Court therefore finds that the Armenian authorities, by failing for several years to take the necessary measures to comply with the final judgments, have deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of all useful effect in the present case and that, in the light of the fact that the applicant's property claims have remained unexecuted for an unreasonably long time, they have failed to respect his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, §§ 56-57, 15 October 2009; and Memishaj v. Albania, no. 40430/08, § 33, 25 March 2014).
- EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00
BURDOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2017 - 66328/12
An unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may therefore breach the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 65, ECHR 2009; and Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, §§ 50-53, 15 October 2009). - EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 18966/02
VOYTENKO v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2017 - 66328/12
In the same context, the impossibility for an applicant to obtain the execution of a judgment in his or her favour in due time constitutes an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, as set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, § 53, 29 June 2004).