Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 49806/99 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PRODAN c. MOLDOVA [Extraits]
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Exceptions préliminaires rejetées (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes victime) Violation de l'art. 6-1 Violation de P1-1 Satisfaction équitable partiellement réservée Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PRODAN v. MOLDOVA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Preliminary objections dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies victim) Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Just satisfaction partially reserved Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 49806/99
- EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 49806/99
- EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 49806/99
Wird zitiert von ... (16) Neu Zitiert selbst (11)
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93
IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 49806/99
But the delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).The Court considers it clear that the applicant must have suffered pecuniary damage as a result of her lack of control over her possessions and the denial to her of the possibility to use and enjoy it (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, ECHR 1999-V).
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 49806/99
On numerous occasions, and absolutely rightly, this Court has stated that applicants should prove the pecuniary damage for which they seek compensation and that they cannot be compensated for damage not actually suffered (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 162-165, ECHR 2000-XI; Treial v. Estonia, no. 48129/99, §§ 67-70, 2 December 2003; Lisiak v. Poland, no. 37443/97, § 52, 5 November 2002; Piechota v. Poland, no. 40330/98, § 49, 5 November 2002; Koral v. Poland, no. 52518/99, § 62, 5 November 2002; Nowicka v. Poland, no. 30218/96, § 82, 3 December 2002 and many, many others). - EGMR, 18.12.1984 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE (ARTICLE 50)
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 49806/99
On the other hand, one cannot exclude the possibility that the applicant suffered, as a result of the potential effects of the violation found, a loss of opportunities of which account must be taken, even if the prospects of realising them were questionable (see, the Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden (Article 50) judgment of 18 December 1984, Series A no. 88, p. 13, § 25).
- EGMR, 03.12.2002 - 30218/96
Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens / des Familienlebens (Rechte inhaftierter …
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 49806/99
On numerous occasions, and absolutely rightly, this Court has stated that applicants should prove the pecuniary damage for which they seek compensation and that they cannot be compensated for damage not actually suffered (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 162-165, ECHR 2000-XI; Treial v. Estonia, no. 48129/99, §§ 67-70, 2 December 2003; Lisiak v. Poland, no. 37443/97, § 52, 5 November 2002; Piechota v. Poland, no. 40330/98, § 49, 5 November 2002; Koral v. Poland, no. 52518/99, § 62, 5 November 2002; Nowicka v. Poland, no. 30218/96, § 82, 3 December 2002 and many, many others). - EGMR, 02.12.2003 - 48129/99
TREIAL v. ESTONIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 49806/99
On numerous occasions, and absolutely rightly, this Court has stated that applicants should prove the pecuniary damage for which they seek compensation and that they cannot be compensated for damage not actually suffered (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 162-165, ECHR 2000-XI; Treial v. Estonia, no. 48129/99, §§ 67-70, 2 December 2003; Lisiak v. Poland, no. 37443/97, § 52, 5 November 2002; Piechota v. Poland, no. 40330/98, § 49, 5 November 2002; Koral v. Poland, no. 52518/99, § 62, 5 November 2002; Nowicka v. Poland, no. 30218/96, § 82, 3 December 2002 and many, many others). - EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 37443/97
LISIAK v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 49806/99
On numerous occasions, and absolutely rightly, this Court has stated that applicants should prove the pecuniary damage for which they seek compensation and that they cannot be compensated for damage not actually suffered (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 162-165, ECHR 2000-XI; Treial v. Estonia, no. 48129/99, §§ 67-70, 2 December 2003; Lisiak v. Poland, no. 37443/97, § 52, 5 November 2002; Piechota v. Poland, no. 40330/98, § 49, 5 November 2002; Koral v. Poland, no. 52518/99, § 62, 5 November 2002; Nowicka v. Poland, no. 30218/96, § 82, 3 December 2002 and many, many others). - EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 40330/98
PIECHOTA v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 49806/99
On numerous occasions, and absolutely rightly, this Court has stated that applicants should prove the pecuniary damage for which they seek compensation and that they cannot be compensated for damage not actually suffered (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 162-165, ECHR 2000-XI; Treial v. Estonia, no. 48129/99, §§ 67-70, 2 December 2003; Lisiak v. Poland, no. 37443/97, § 52, 5 November 2002; Piechota v. Poland, no. 40330/98, § 49, 5 November 2002; Koral v. Poland, no. 52518/99, § 62, 5 November 2002; Nowicka v. Poland, no. 30218/96, § 82, 3 December 2002 and many, many others). - EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 52518/99
KORAL v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 49806/99
On numerous occasions, and absolutely rightly, this Court has stated that applicants should prove the pecuniary damage for which they seek compensation and that they cannot be compensated for damage not actually suffered (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 162-165, ECHR 2000-XI; Treial v. Estonia, no. 48129/99, §§ 67-70, 2 December 2003; Lisiak v. Poland, no. 37443/97, § 52, 5 November 2002; Piechota v. Poland, no. 40330/98, § 49, 5 November 2002; Koral v. Poland, no. 52518/99, § 62, 5 November 2002; Nowicka v. Poland, no. 30218/96, § 82, 3 December 2002 and many, many others). - EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87
RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 49806/99
The Court reiterates that a "claim" can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see the Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, § 59). - EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94
Mord an James Bulger
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 49806/99
The burden of proof is on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that an effective remedy was available in theory and in practice at the relevant time; that is to say, that the remedy was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaint and offered reasonable prospects of success (see V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 57, ECHR 1999-IX). - EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01
BRUSCO v. ITALY
- EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 63610/00
FORUM MARITIME S.A. c. ROUMANIE
Cependant, cette règle ne va pas sans exceptions, qui peuvent être justifiées par les circonstances particulières de l'espèce (Prodan c. Moldova, no 49806/99, § 39, CEDH 2004-III (extraits)). - EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 26246/05
IORGA ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
Cependant, cette règle ne va pas sans exceptions, qui peuvent être justifiées par les circonstances particulières de l'espèce (Brusco précitée et Prodan c. Moldova, no 49806/99, § 39, CEDH 2004-III (extraits)). - EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 33328/06
MODRANGA ET AUTRES c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
La Cour a établi dans un grand nombre d'affaires, dont celles dirigées contre la République de Moldova, sa pratique en ce qui concerne les griefs tirés de la violation des articles 6 § 1 et 13 de la Convention et de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention en raison de la non-exécution des arrêts définitifs (voir, par exemple, Burea et autres c. République de Moldova [comité], nos 55349/07 et autres, 13 décembre 2011 ; Vartic et autres c. République de Moldova, nos 12674/07 et autres, 20 septembre 2011 ; Prodan c. République de Moldova, no 49806/99, CEDH 2004-III (extraits) ; Luntre et autres c. République de Moldova, nos 2916/02 et autres, 15 juin 2004, etc.).
- EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 4710/04
DUMITRU c. ROUMANIE
La Cour renvoie à sa jurisprudence relative à la non-exécution des décisions internes définitives, notamment aux affaires Tacea c. Roumanie, no 746/02, 29 septembre 2005 ; Dragne et autres c. Roumanie, no 78047/01, 7 avril 2005 ; Orha c. Roumanie, no 1486/02, 12 octobre 2006 ; Prodan c. Moldova, no 49806/99, CEDH 2004-III (extraits), et Pistireanu c. Roumanie, no 34860/02, 30 septembre 2008. - EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 28650/05
DRONIC c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
C'est pourquoi, elle considère que la valeur marchande actuelle du bien doit être prise en compte (comparer avec Prodan c. Moldova, no 49806/99, § 76, CEDH 2004-III (extraits), et Guiso-Gallisay c. Italie (satisfaction équitable) [GC], no 58858/00, §§ 90-101, 22 décembre 2009). - EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 44894/13
PRODIUS ET AUTRES c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
Concernant le dommage moral, la Cour remarque que les montants alloués dans certaines procédures sont manifestement inférieurs à ceux que la Cour octroie généralement dans des affaires moldaves similaires (à voir parmi d'autres Botezatu, précité, § 42, Mizernaia c. Moldova, no 31790/03, § 32, 25 septembre 2007, Prodan c. Moldova, no 49806/99, § 82, CEDH 2004-III (extraits). - EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 12674/07
VARTIC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA
The relevant domestic law has been summarised in Prodan v. Moldova, no. 49806/99, § 31, ECHR 2004-III (extracts) and in Olaru and Others v. Moldova, cited above. - EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 38113/02
MATACHE ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
Si l'on accepte que le jugement du 23 mai 2002 est directement exécutoire, la Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà décidé dans de tels cas que la non-exécution entraîne une violation de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention (voir affaires Metaxas précitée, Prodan c. Moldova, no 49806/99, §§ 60-62, CEDH 2004-III, et Sandor c. Roumanie, no 67289/01, §§ 34-37, 24 mars 2005). - EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 70923/01
JURJEVS c. LETTONIE
(voir, mutatis mutandis, Hartman c. République tchèque, no 53341/99, §§ 53-54, CEDH 2003-VIII, et Prodan c. Moldova, no 49806/99, § 36, CEDH 2004-III). - EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 41541/13
SPIRIDONOV c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
En l'espèce, la Cour note que la cour d'appel a constaté que le requérant a subi une violation de ses droits garantis par l'article 6 de la Convention et l'article 1 du Protocole no 1. En même temps, elle observe que le jugement rendu en faveur du requérant n'a pas été exécuté et le dédommagement alloué est manifestement inférieur à ce qu'elle octroie généralement dans des affaires moldaves similaires (à voir parmi d'autres Botezatu c. République de Moldova, no 17899/08, § 42, 14 avril 2015, Mizernaia c. Moldova, no 31790/03, § 32, 25 septembre 2007, et Prodan c. Moldova, no 49806/99, § 82, CEDH 2004-III (extraits)). - EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 30683/08
CHIRIACOV ET FURCULITA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 48006/11
ALBERT ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 12235/05
IACOB POP ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 67344/01
MUSTEATA ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 50886/08
ICHIM c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 39312/07
STOMFF c. ROUMANIE