Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAGHATURIA v. GEORGIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 8, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 20082/02

  ZEHENTNER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2010 - 46365/06

  The Court notes that the applicant has never lived in the disputed flat which, consequently, cannot constitute his "home" within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Zehentner v. Austria, no. 20082/02, §§ 52-53, ECHR 2009-...; McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, § 46, 13 May 2008).
• EGMR, 26.09.2012 - 19009/04

  McCANN AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2010 - 46365/06

  The Court notes that the applicant has never lived in the disputed flat which, consequently, cannot constitute his "home" within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Zehentner v. Austria, no. 20082/02, §§ 52-53, ECHR 2009-...; McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, § 46, 13 May 2008).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 2202/05

  TISHKEVICH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2010 - 46365/06

  The Court recalls that where a judgment debt is against a private person, and the main alleged cause of the non-enforcement is the bailiffs" conduct, it is appropriate to bring proceedings against those bailiffs to give the State a chance to put matters right internally (see, for example, Nazaretian v. Georgia (dec.), no. 13909/06, 7 July 2009; Samoylenko and Polonska v. Ukraine, no. 6566/05, § 25, 18 December 2008; Tishkevich v. Russia, no. 2202/05, § 17, 4 December 2008).

 
• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 6566/05

  SAMOYLENKO AND POLONSKA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2010 - 46365/06

  The Court recalls that where a judgment debt is against a private person, and the main alleged cause of the non-enforcement is the bailiffs" conduct, it is appropriate to bring proceedings against those bailiffs to give the State a chance to put matters right internally (see, for example, Nazaretian v. Georgia (dec.), no. 13909/06, 7 July 2009; Samoylenko and Polonska v. Ukraine, no. 6566/05, § 25, 18 December 2008; Tishkevich v. Russia, no. 2202/05, § 17, 4 December 2008).
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 13909/06

  NAZARETIAN v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2010 - 46365/06

  The Court recalls that where a judgment debt is against a private person, and the main alleged cause of the non-enforcement is the bailiffs" conduct, it is appropriate to bring proceedings against those bailiffs to give the State a chance to put matters right internally (see, for example, Nazaretian v. Georgia (dec.), no. 13909/06, 7 July 2009; Samoylenko and Polonska v. Ukraine, no. 6566/05, § 25, 18 December 2008; Tishkevich v. Russia, no. 2202/05, § 17, 4 December 2008).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 48757/99

  SHESTAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2010 - 46365/06

  The Government stated, amongst other arguments, that the applicant's complaint about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 12 February 2004 was incompatible ratione materiae with the invoked provisions of the Convention, in so far as the private debtor's obstinate refusal to discharge the judgment debt, despite the enforcement authority's repeated efforts in that respect, cannot be held imputable to the State (see Shestakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 48757/99, 18 June 2002).