Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SANDU AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Struck out of the list (Art. 37) Striking out applications-general;(Art. 37-1-a) Absence of intention to pursue application;(Art. 37-1-c) Continued examination not justified;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;No ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SANDU AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA and 7 other applications

  Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  As they did in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2016), the Russian Government expressed the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in Ilascu and Others (cited above), Ivantoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011), and Catan and Others (cited above) was wrong and at variance with public international law.

  My vote in the present case was based on my previous dissenting opinion in the case of Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, ECHR 2016) on the issue of the Russian Federation's effective control over Transdniestria.

• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  The Court reiterates that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention can be either "existing possessions" or assets, including claims in respect of which the applicant can argue that he or she has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised, that is, that he or she will obtain effective enjoyment of a property right (see, for example, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332; Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII; Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, c, ECHR 2004-IX; Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, § 50, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  The Court reiterates that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention can be either "existing possessions" or assets, including claims in respect of which the applicant can argue that he or she has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised, that is, that he or she will obtain effective enjoyment of a property right (see, for example, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332; Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII; Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, c, ECHR 2004-IX; Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, § 50, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos.

 
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see, among many other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98, and Fábián v. Hungary [GC], no. 78117/13, § 60, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  37685/10 and 22768/12, § 143, 20 March 2018).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  As they did in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2016), the Russian Government expressed the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in Ilascu and Others (cited above), Ivantoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011), and Catan and Others (cited above) was wrong and at variance with public international law.
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  For practical reasons this judgment will continue to refer to Posedo-Agro S.R.L. as the "applicant" although its successor company Serghei Popa FP is today to be regarded as having that status (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI, and Brosset-Triboulet and Others v. France [GC], no. 34078/02, § 58, 29 March 2010).
• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  Part of the land belonging to the applicants is situated in areas near these villages, across a road which links the northern and southern parts of the self-proclaimed "Moldovan Transdniestrian Republic" (the "MRT" - see for more details Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-185, ECHR 2004-VII) and Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 52061/14

  POLOVYNKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention covers the situation where the applicant wishes to withdraw his or her application (see K.A.S. v. The United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38884/12, § 45, 4 June 2013, and Polovynko and Others v. Ukraine and Russia (dec.), no. 52061/14 and 3 others, § 10, 5 July 2016).
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 5629/03

  DIMITRESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  Given the economic nature of the interests at stake, which are thus transferable to other persons or entities, and the absence of any doubt that Mr Popa had the right to represent each of the two companies he had created, the Court sees no reason to disregard the agreement between the two companies and finds no procedural impediment to replacing the original applicant company by the new one (see, for instance, Dimitrescu v. Romania, nos. 5629/03 and 3028/04, § 34, 3 June 2008).
• EGMR - 34179/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 55607/09

  H.P. v. DENMARK

• EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 3599/18

  Keine Zuständigkeit für aus dem Ausland beantragtes humanitäres Visum, um nach …

  21034/05 and 7 others, §§ 36-38, 17 July 2018).
• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 37715/13

  DE SOUSA MAGALHÃES ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL

  En revanche, la Cour a considéré que l'espérance légitime de pouvoir continuer à exercer une activité commerciale, sur un terrain loué à cet effet, était suffisamment importante pour constituer un intérêt substantiel, donc un « bien'au sens de la norme exprimée dans la première phrase de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention (voir, notamment, Di Marco c. Italie (fond), no 32521/05, §§ 52-53, 26 avril 2011, et Sandu et autres c. République de Moldova et Russie, nos 21034/05 et 7 autres, § 77, 17 juillet 2018).
• EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 12999/15

  AVANESYAN v. ARMENIA

  21034/05 and 7 others, §§ 36-38, 17 July 2018; and M.N. v Belgium, cited above, § 103).