Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAFAILOVIC AND STEVANOVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  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)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 38629/07

  In the same context, the inability of a successful litigant to have a judgment rendered in his favour enforced, if that situation persists for a relatively long period of time, may constitute an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, in the sense of the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 38629/07

  The Court reiterates that a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances, but the delay must not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1 (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 22000/03

  RAYLYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 38629/07

  When determining whether the delay was reasonable, the Court examines how complex the enforcement proceedings were, how the applicant and the authorities behaved, and what the nature of the award was (see Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).

 
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 17899/02

  LISYANSKIY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 38629/07

  Contrary to the Government's submission, the legal status of the local communities as separate legal entities cannot be decisive on its own for the exercise of attribution (see, mutatis mutandis, R. Kacapor and Others, cited above, § 98; Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 35091/02 et seq., § 45, ECHR 2004-XII; Lisyanskiy v. Ukraine, no. 17899/02, § 19, 4 April 2006; and Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova, no. 39745/02, §§ 18-19, 3 April 2007).
• EKMR, 14.12.1988 - 13252/87

  GEMEINDE ROTHENTHURM c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 38629/07

  Where powers are distributed along decentralised lines, State bodies may be any national or local self-government authority which exercises public functions, whatever the extent of their autonomy vis-à-vis the central organs (see, albeit in the locus standi context, Ayuntamiento de Mula v. Spain (dec.), no. 55346/00, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2001-I; The Municipal Section of Antilly v. France (dec.), no. 45129/98, ECHR 1999-VIII; Rothenthurm Commune v. Switzerland, no. 13252/87, Commission decision of 14 December 1988, Decisions and Reports, (DR) 59; and The Province of Bari, Sorrentino and Messeni Nemagna v. Italy, no. 41877/98, Commission decision of 15 September 1998, Collection 20).
• EGMR, 23.11.1999 - 45129/98

  LA SECTION DE COMMUNE D'ANTILLY contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 38629/07

  Where powers are distributed along decentralised lines, State bodies may be any national or local self-government authority which exercises public functions, whatever the extent of their autonomy vis-à-vis the central organs (see, albeit in the locus standi context, Ayuntamiento de Mula v. Spain (dec.), no. 55346/00, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2001-I; The Municipal Section of Antilly v. France (dec.), no. 45129/98, ECHR 1999-VIII; Rothenthurm Commune v. Switzerland, no. 13252/87, Commission decision of 14 December 1988, Decisions and Reports, (DR) 59; and The Province of Bari, Sorrentino and Messeni Nemagna v. Italy, no. 41877/98, Commission decision of 15 September 1998, Collection 20).
• EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 39745/02

  COOPERATIVA AGRICOLA SLOBOZIA-HANESEI v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 38629/07

  Contrary to the Government's submission, the legal status of the local communities as separate legal entities cannot be decisive on its own for the exercise of attribution (see, mutatis mutandis, R. Kacapor and Others, cited above, § 98; Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 35091/02 et seq., § 45, ECHR 2004-XII; Lisyanskiy v. Ukraine, no. 17899/02, § 19, 4 April 2006; and Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova, no. 39745/02, §§ 18-19, 3 April 2007).
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 38629/07

  Relying on the Court's findings in the case of Blecic v. Croatia (Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, §§ 63-69, ECHR 2006-III), the Government submitted that the Court lacked temporal jurisdiction to deal with the alleged violations of the applicants" rights which related to events that had taken place before 3 March 2004, the date on which the Convention had entered into force in respect of Serbia ("the ratification date").
• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 35091/02

  MIKHAÏLENKI ET AUTRES c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 38629/07

  Contrary to the Government's submission, the legal status of the local communities as separate legal entities cannot be decisive on its own for the exercise of attribution (see, mutatis mutandis, R. Kacapor and Others, cited above, § 98; Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 35091/02 et seq., § 45, ECHR 2004-XII; Lisyanskiy v. Ukraine, no. 17899/02, § 19, 4 April 2006; and Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova, no. 39745/02, §§ 18-19, 3 April 2007).
• EGMR, 01.02.2001 - 55346/00

  AYUNTAMIENTO DE MULA contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 38629/07

  Where powers are distributed along decentralised lines, State bodies may be any national or local self-government authority which exercises public functions, whatever the extent of their autonomy vis-à-vis the central organs (see, albeit in the locus standi context, Ayuntamiento de Mula v. Spain (dec.), no. 55346/00, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2001-I; The Municipal Section of Antilly v. France (dec.), no. 45129/98, ECHR 1999-VIII; Rothenthurm Commune v. Switzerland, no. 13252/87, Commission decision of 14 December 1988, Decisions and Reports, (DR) 59; and The Province of Bari, Sorrentino and Messeni Nemagna v. Italy, no. 41877/98, Commission decision of 15 September 1998, Collection 20).