Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 28432/06, 5665/07 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,33605) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GRAMA AND DÎRUL v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
GRAMA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA and 1 other application
Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04
Transnistrien
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 28432/06
As they did in Mozer (cited above, §§ 92-94), the Russian Government expressed the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII); Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, ECHR 2012; and Ivantoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011) was wrong and at variance with public international law. - EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98
Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 28432/06
According to the Court's case-law (see among other authorities, Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, § 142, ECHR 2005-VI), such interference constitutes a measure of control of the use of property which falls to be examined under the second paragraph of that Article. - EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05
IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 28432/06
As they did in Mozer (cited above, §§ 92-94), the Russian Government expressed the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII); Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, ECHR 2012; and Ivantoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011) was wrong and at variance with public international law.