Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KURAL v. TÜRKIYE

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KURAL v. TURKEY

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 14.09.2022 - 24384/19

  Europas IS-Anhänger: Großeltern klagen auf Rückholung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 84388/17

  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 were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, H.F. and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24384/19 and 44234/20, § 291, 14 September 2022).
• EGMR, 08.11.2021 - 49868/19

  DOLINSKA-FICEK AND OZIMEK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 84388/17

  The Court notes, moreover, that it has on many occasions emphasised that the domestic authorities' failure to duly enforce judicial decisions - including binding and enforceable interim decisions (see, for example, Okyay and Others v. Turkey, no. 36220/97, § 73, ECHR 2005-VII, and Mehmet Taner Sentürk, cited above, §§ 41-42) - would be incompatible with the rule of law and the principle of legal certainty (ibid.; see also, Hornsby, cited above, §§ 40-41, and Dolinska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, § 328, 8 November 2021).
• EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 1469/20

  ADVANCE PHARMA SP. Z O.O v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 84388/17

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention must be interpreted in the light of the Preamble to the Convention, which declares, among other things, the rule of law to be part of the common heritage of the Contracting States (see Advance Pharma sp. z o.o v. Poland, no. 1469/20, § 331, 3 February 2022).

 
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 10613/16

  SHARXHI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 84388/17

  The execution of a judgment given by any court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the "trial" for the purposes of Article 6 (see Hornsby v. Greece, 19 March 1997, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, and Sharxhi and Others v. Albania, no. 10613/16, § 92, 11 January 2018).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  DIMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 84388/17

  As to the remaining part of the claim for pecuniary damage (concerning expenses, costs and fees associated with the proceedings before the domestic courts and the Court), the Court considers it appropriate to examine it under the head of costs and expenses (see Dimitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77938/11, § 180, 1 July 2014), and will do so below.
• EGMR, 18.07.2023 - 49255/22

  CAMARA c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 84388/17

  This applies, by definition, to the implementation of judicial decisions on interim measures that remain in force until a final decision determining the case before a court has been given (see Sharxhi and Others, cited above, § 92, and Camara v. Belgium, no. 49255/22, § 105, 18 July 2023).
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 53208/19

  MEHMET ÇIFTCI c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 84388/17

  The Court lastly considers that the arguments put forward regarding the Government's objection that the present complaint had been manifestly ill-founded raise issues requiring an examination of the merits of the complaint (see Mehmet Çiftci v. Turkey, no. 53208/19, § 26, 16 November 2021, and the references therein).
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 75588/01

  ALKIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 84388/17

  The Court further notes that under section 28 of Law no. 2577 (see paragraph 21 above), which does not make a distinction between judgments on the merits and stay-of-execution decisions regarding their binding nature, the national authorities were under an obligation to comply with the decision of 10 April 2014 even before it was reviewed by a higher court and became final (see also Alkin v. Turkey, no. 75588/01, § 52, 13 October 2009, and Mehmet Taner Sentürk, cited above, § 40).
• EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 20763/03

  NITESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 84388/17

  In that connection, the Court also notes that the possibility of appointing plaintiffs to different positions, which appears to have been used by the national authorities in the case of the applicant, would mean that the authorities could avoid the enforcement of a binding judicial decision by either filling with someone else or abolishing entirely the post in question following a contested dismissal or transfer (see, mutatis mutandis, Vasile Nitescu v. Romania, no. 20763/03, § 39, 21 April 2009).
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 2971/08

  ARBACIAUSKIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 84388/17

  The burden of ensuring compliance with a judgment against a State lies primarily with the authorities of the State in question, starting from the date on which the judgment becomes binding and enforceable (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 69, ECHR 2009, and Arbaciauskiene v. Lithuania, no. 2971/08, § 86, 1 March 2016).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 10781/08

  OHNEBERG v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 51470/15

  MEHMET TANER SENTÜRK c. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 18544/08

  CENTRAL MEDITERRANEAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED v. MALTA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 18.04.2002 - 49144/99

  OUZOUNIS ET AUTRES c. GRECE