Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BOCVARSKA v. \

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 27865/02
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 27865/02

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

• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

  ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 27865/02

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 64, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 02.11.2004 - 61333/00

  TREGUBENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 27865/02

  It is the established jurisprudence of this Court that the quashing of a final and binding judgment that conferred a "possession" on the applicant constitutes an interference with the applicant's right to that property (see Tregubenko v. Ukraine, no. 61333/00, § 51, 2 November 2004, and Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 74, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 13909/05

  LEPOJIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 27865/02

  In addition, the public prosecutor had full discretion in deciding whether to lodge the legality review request with the Supreme Court (see Lepojic v. Serbia, no. 13909/05, § 54, 6 November 2007, and Dimitrovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 21466/03, 30 September 2008).

 
• EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 14258/03

  PARIZOV v.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 27865/02

  The Court points out that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court "the applicant must submit itemised particulars of all claims, together with any relevant supporting documents failing which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part" (see Parizov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 14258/03, § 71, 7 February 2008).
• EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 21466/03

  DIMITROVSKA v.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 27865/02

  In addition, the public prosecutor had full discretion in deciding whether to lodge the legality review request with the Supreme Court (see Lepojic v. Serbia, no. 13909/05, § 54, 6 November 2007, and Dimitrovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 21466/03, 30 September 2008).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 27865/02

  That claim may be regarded as a "possession" for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 84, § 59; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III; Rosca v. Moldova, no. 6267/02, § 31, 22 March 2005; and Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 61, ECHR 2003-IX).