Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 40450/04   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2009,68189
EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 40450/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68189)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15.10.2009 - 40450/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68189)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15. Januar 2009 - 40450/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68189)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,68189) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    YURIY NIKOLAYEVICH IVANOV v. UKRAINE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Violation of Art. 13 Respondent State to take individual measures Respondent State to take measures of a general character Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Sonstiges




Kontextvorschau:





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (35)  

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 30.04.2019 - C-556/17

    Torubarov - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und

    Vgl. z. B. EGMR, Urteile vom 7. Mai 2002, Burdov/Russland (CE:ECHR:2002:0507JUD005949800, §§ 34 bis 37), vom 6. März 2003, Jasi?«niene/Litauen (CE:ECHR:2003:0306JUD004151098, §§ 27 bis 31), vom 7. April 2005, Uzkureliene/Litauen (CE:ECHR:2005:0407JUD006298800, § 36), wo allerdings festgestellt wurde, dass die geltend gemachten Verzögerungen bei der Vollstreckung einer gerichtlichen Entscheidung keinen Verstoß gegen Art. 6 Abs. 1 darstellen, vom 7. Juli 2005, Malinovskiy/Russland (CE:ECHR:2005:0707JUD004130202, §§ 34 bis 39), vom 31. Oktober 2006, Jelicic/Bosnien-Herzegovina (CE:ECHR:2006:1031JUD004118302, §§ 38 bis 45), vom 15. Oktober 2009, Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov/Ukraine (CE:ECHR:2009:1015JUD004045004, §§ 51 bis 57), und vom 19. Juni 2012, Murtic und Cerimovic/Bosnien-Herzegovina (CE:ECHR:2012:0619JUD000649509, §§ 27 bis 30).
  • EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 30767/05

    MARIA ATANASIU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

    La Cour note qu'à la différence des affaires Broniowski et Hutten-Czapska, précitées, dans lesquelles la défaillance dans l'ordre juridique interne a été identifiée pour la première fois, la Cour se prononce dans les présentes affaires après plusieurs arrêts qui ont déjà conclu à la violation des articles 6 § 1 de la Convention et 1 du Protocole no 1 en raison des défaillances du système roumain d'indemnisation ou de restitution (voir, dans le même sens, Bourdov c. Russie (no 2), no 33509/04, §§ 129, CEDH 2009-..., Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov c. Ukraine, no 40450/04, § 83, CEDH 2009-... (extraits)).
  • EGMR, 15.06.2017 - 66328/12

    DNGIKYAN v. ARMENIA

    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, 01.03.2016 - 2971/08

    ARBACIAUSKIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA

    It notes that it was within the power of the authorities to organise the proceedings related to the land reform in such a manner which would not impair the essence of the applicant's right to be allocated a plot of land, recognised by a final and binding court judgment (see, mutatis mutandis, Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, § 55, 15 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 31833/06

    CINGILLI HOLDING A.S. AND CINGILLIOGLU v. TURKEY

    It refers to its extensive case-law concerning the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see, amongst many other cases, Tacea v. Romania, no. 746/02, 29 September 2005; Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, §§ 38-39, ECHR 2006-XII; Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, §§ 51-57, 15 October 2009; and Süzer and Eksen Holding A.S., cited above, § 114).
  • EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 77056/14

    SHTOLTS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    While the compliance of the improved compensatory mechanism with the Convention requirements will be examined by the Court below (see paragraphs 103-115), the Court is bound to observe that the situation in the present group of Russian post-pilot cases is visibly different - both from the standpoint of the progress achieved at domestic level (see paragraphs 84 and 94 above) and the caseload - from the recent case of Burmych and Others v. Ukraine ([GC], nos. 46852/13 and 4 others, §§ 182-84, 12 October 2017), in which the Grand Chamber concluded that the pilot judgment in Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009) dealing with repetitive non-enforcement cases lodged against Ukraine had "clearly not succeeded in achieving its aims" (contrast Burmych and Others, cited above, §§ 43, 146-47 and 182-84).
  • EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 50346/07

    DIMITAR YANAKIEV v. BULGARIA

    As regards remedies in the context of enforcement of domestic judicial decisions, the Court has held that any domestic means to prevent a violation by ensuring timely enforcement is, in principle, of greatest value (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 98, ECHR 2009, and Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, § 65, ECHR 2009-...(extracts)).
  • EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 18238/06

    YAGNINA v. BULGARIA

    In view of the violation it found of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that the applicant had an arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13. It then recalls that domestic remedies in cases of failure to implement domestic judgments can in principle be either of preventive or of compensatory nature (see Stoyanov and Tabakov v. Bulgaria, no. 34130/04, § 91, 26 November 2013; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 98, ECHR 2009; Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no 40450/04, § 65, CEDH 2009-... (extraits)).).
  • EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 6495/09

    MURTIC AND CERIMOVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

    The Court also recalls its extensive case-law concerning the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see, amongst many other cases, Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, §§ 38-39, ECHR 2006-XII; Tacea v. Romania, no. 746/02, 29 September 2005; and Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, §§ 51-57, 15 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 45879/07

    SEMYRODA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2017 - 1849/08

    VELKOVA v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 26417/08

    DYACHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 23620/05

    POLIMERKONTEYNER, TOV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 36274/08

    STOJILKOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  • EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 42842/05

    ZAVGORODNIY v. UKRAINE AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

  • EGMR, 06.09.2018 - 2866/13

    UZUNOVA AND SEID v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 44452/10

    GAVRILOV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 68185/11

    SHEHOVA v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 62904/12

    FIDANYAN v. ARMENIA

  • EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 7205/11

    PAPOYAN v. ARMENIA

  • EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 29432/08

    BALANDINA AND ANDREYKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 18.05.2017 - 75651/11

    NIKOGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA

  • EGMR, 03.11.2016 - 25250/16

    SVYSTUN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 7070/04

    SEMYANISTY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 13.06.2013 - 42953/04

    KISELYOV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 703/05

    KHARUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 20427/06

    VOLOBUYEVA v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 46969/09

    PETROVA v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 7158/04

    ROBOTA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 7321/05

    ALPATOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 644/05

    LAZEBNA v. UKRAINE AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

  • EGMR, 29.09.2016 - 4939/08

    KOROL v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 38083/04

    SMIRNOV v. UKRAINE AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

  • EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 39896/05

    DEMCHENKO v. UKRAINE AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

  • EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 26316/09

    ALYOKHIN v. UKRAINE AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht