Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 31833/06, 37538/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2015,18509
EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 31833/06, 37538/06 (https://dejure.org/2015,18509)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.07.2015 - 31833/06, 37538/06 (https://dejure.org/2015,18509)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. Juli 2015 - 31833/06, 37538/06 (https://dejure.org/2015,18509)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,18509) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CINGILLI HOLDING A.S. AND CINGILLIOGLU v. TURKEY

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings Article 6-1 - Access to court) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) ...

Sonstiges

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (24)

  • EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 46815/09

    REISNER v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 31833/06
    In this regard, the Court notes that in separate proceedings, which are the source of a related application to the Court (see Reisner v. Turkey, no. 46815/09, 21 July 2015), the Supreme Administrative Court held in a judgment of 16 March 2009 that the enforcement of the judgment of 5 November 2004 (see paragraph 11 above) could be secured by the return of the supervisory and executive rights to Demirbank's shareholders, and did not require the restitution of the actual shares which would, in any event, be impossible.

    As mentioned in the judgment (see paragraph 43), the Supreme Administrative Court assessed the transfer and subsequent sale of Demirbank in separate proceedings, which are the source of a related application to the Court (see Reisner v. Turkey, no. 46815/09, § 28, 21 July 2015).

  • EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

    BURDOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 31833/06
    The question of whether the applicant can claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of the Convention is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 30, ECHR 2002-III).

    By way of example, such cases have related to failure to: pay a debt or compensation (Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 36-38, ECHR 2002-III; Timofeyev v. Russia, no. 58263/00, §§ 40-43, 23 October 2003; Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, §§ 25-26, 27 May 2004; and Simaldone v. Italy, no. 22644/03, §§ 48-56, 31 March 2009); comply with the annulment of an expropriation order (Katsaros v. Greece, no. 51473/99, §§ 33-35, 6 June 2002); restore property or pay compensation (Jasiuniene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, §§ 28-32, 6 March 2003, and Sabin Popescu v. Romania, no. 48102/99, §§ 68-76, 2 March 2004); demolish buildings (Kyrtatos v. Greece, no. 41666/98, §§ 31-32, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts), and Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, §§ 65-73, 17 June 2003); evict persons from a building (Prodan v. Moldova, no. 49806/99, §§ 50-56, ECHR 2004-III (extracts)); grant access to public documents (Kenedi v. Hungary, no. 31475/05, §§ 35-39, 26 May 2009); bring industrial and other activities to an end (Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, §§ 135-138, ECHR 2004-X, and Okyay and Others v. Turkey, no. 36220/97, §§ 72-74, ECHR 2005-VII); employ a person (Castren-Niniou v. Greece, no. 43837/02, §§ 25-28, 9 June 2005); and hand over adopted children to their parents (Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, §§ 174-189, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)).

  • EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 6334/05

    SÜZER ET EKSEN HOLDING A.S. c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 31833/06
    The Court also notes that it has examined a similar objection in the past and has rejected it (see Süzer and Eksen Holding A.S. v. Turkey, no. 6334/05, §§ 95-98, 23 October 2012).

    Thus, in practice it may be impossible de facto or de jure to execute a judgment (see Loiseau v. France, no. 46809/99, § 19, 28 September 2004; Manoilescu and Dobrescu v. Romania and Russia (dec.), no. 60861/00, §§ 67-82, ECHR 2005-VI; Treska v. Albania and Italy (dec.), no. 26937/04, ECHR 2006-XI (extracts); Société Cofinfo v. France (dec.), no. 23516/08, 12 October 2010; Sofiran and BDA v. France, no. 63684/09, §§ 50-56, 11 July 2013; and Süzer and Eksen Holding A.S. v. Turkey, no. 6334/05, § 123, 23 October 2012).

  • EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 46117/99

    Taskin u.a. ./. Türkei - Umgehung einer rechtskräftigen Entscheidung der Justiz

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 31833/06
    By way of example, such cases have related to failure to: pay a debt or compensation (Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 36-38, ECHR 2002-III; Timofeyev v. Russia, no. 58263/00, §§ 40-43, 23 October 2003; Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, §§ 25-26, 27 May 2004; and Simaldone v. Italy, no. 22644/03, §§ 48-56, 31 March 2009); comply with the annulment of an expropriation order (Katsaros v. Greece, no. 51473/99, §§ 33-35, 6 June 2002); restore property or pay compensation (Jasiuniene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, §§ 28-32, 6 March 2003, and Sabin Popescu v. Romania, no. 48102/99, §§ 68-76, 2 March 2004); demolish buildings (Kyrtatos v. Greece, no. 41666/98, §§ 31-32, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts), and Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, §§ 65-73, 17 June 2003); evict persons from a building (Prodan v. Moldova, no. 49806/99, §§ 50-56, ECHR 2004-III (extracts)); grant access to public documents (Kenedi v. Hungary, no. 31475/05, §§ 35-39, 26 May 2009); bring industrial and other activities to an end (Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, §§ 135-138, ECHR 2004-X, and Okyay and Others v. Turkey, no. 36220/97, §§ 72-74, ECHR 2005-VII); employ a person (Castren-Niniou v. Greece, no. 43837/02, §§ 25-28, 9 June 2005); and hand over adopted children to their parents (Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, §§ 174-189, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 8415/02

    METAXAS c. GRECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 31833/06
    By way of example, such cases have related to failure to: pay a debt or compensation (Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 36-38, ECHR 2002-III; Timofeyev v. Russia, no. 58263/00, §§ 40-43, 23 October 2003; Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, §§ 25-26, 27 May 2004; and Simaldone v. Italy, no. 22644/03, §§ 48-56, 31 March 2009); comply with the annulment of an expropriation order (Katsaros v. Greece, no. 51473/99, §§ 33-35, 6 June 2002); restore property or pay compensation (Jasiuniene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, §§ 28-32, 6 March 2003, and Sabin Popescu v. Romania, no. 48102/99, §§ 68-76, 2 March 2004); demolish buildings (Kyrtatos v. Greece, no. 41666/98, §§ 31-32, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts), and Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, §§ 65-73, 17 June 2003); evict persons from a building (Prodan v. Moldova, no. 49806/99, §§ 50-56, ECHR 2004-III (extracts)); grant access to public documents (Kenedi v. Hungary, no. 31475/05, §§ 35-39, 26 May 2009); bring industrial and other activities to an end (Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, §§ 135-138, ECHR 2004-X, and Okyay and Others v. Turkey, no. 36220/97, §§ 72-74, ECHR 2005-VII); employ a person (Castren-Niniou v. Greece, no. 43837/02, §§ 25-28, 9 June 2005); and hand over adopted children to their parents (Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, §§ 174-189, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 63684/09

    SOFIRAN ET BDA c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 31833/06
    Thus, in practice it may be impossible de facto or de jure to execute a judgment (see Loiseau v. France, no. 46809/99, § 19, 28 September 2004; Manoilescu and Dobrescu v. Romania and Russia (dec.), no. 60861/00, §§ 67-82, ECHR 2005-VI; Treska v. Albania and Italy (dec.), no. 26937/04, ECHR 2006-XI (extracts); Société Cofinfo v. France (dec.), no. 23516/08, 12 October 2010; Sofiran and BDA v. France, no. 63684/09, §§ 50-56, 11 July 2013; and Süzer and Eksen Holding A.S. v. Turkey, no. 6334/05, § 123, 23 October 2012).
  • EGMR, 02.03.2004 - 48102/99

    SABIN POPESCU c. ROUMANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 31833/06
    By way of example, such cases have related to failure to: pay a debt or compensation (Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 36-38, ECHR 2002-III; Timofeyev v. Russia, no. 58263/00, §§ 40-43, 23 October 2003; Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, §§ 25-26, 27 May 2004; and Simaldone v. Italy, no. 22644/03, §§ 48-56, 31 March 2009); comply with the annulment of an expropriation order (Katsaros v. Greece, no. 51473/99, §§ 33-35, 6 June 2002); restore property or pay compensation (Jasiuniene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, §§ 28-32, 6 March 2003, and Sabin Popescu v. Romania, no. 48102/99, §§ 68-76, 2 March 2004); demolish buildings (Kyrtatos v. Greece, no. 41666/98, §§ 31-32, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts), and Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, §§ 65-73, 17 June 2003); evict persons from a building (Prodan v. Moldova, no. 49806/99, §§ 50-56, ECHR 2004-III (extracts)); grant access to public documents (Kenedi v. Hungary, no. 31475/05, §§ 35-39, 26 May 2009); bring industrial and other activities to an end (Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, §§ 135-138, ECHR 2004-X, and Okyay and Others v. Turkey, no. 36220/97, §§ 72-74, ECHR 2005-VII); employ a person (Castren-Niniou v. Greece, no. 43837/02, §§ 25-28, 9 June 2005); and hand over adopted children to their parents (Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, §§ 174-189, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 60861/00

    MANOILESCU AND DOBRESCU v. ROMANIA AND RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 31833/06
    Thus, in practice it may be impossible de facto or de jure to execute a judgment (see Loiseau v. France, no. 46809/99, § 19, 28 September 2004; Manoilescu and Dobrescu v. Romania and Russia (dec.), no. 60861/00, §§ 67-82, ECHR 2005-VI; Treska v. Albania and Italy (dec.), no. 26937/04, ECHR 2006-XI (extracts); Société Cofinfo v. France (dec.), no. 23516/08, 12 October 2010; Sofiran and BDA v. France, no. 63684/09, §§ 50-56, 11 July 2013; and Süzer and Eksen Holding A.S. v. Turkey, no. 6334/05, § 123, 23 October 2012).
  • EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 78030/01
    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 31833/06
    By way of example, such cases have related to failure to: pay a debt or compensation (Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 36-38, ECHR 2002-III; Timofeyev v. Russia, no. 58263/00, §§ 40-43, 23 October 2003; Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, §§ 25-26, 27 May 2004; and Simaldone v. Italy, no. 22644/03, §§ 48-56, 31 March 2009); comply with the annulment of an expropriation order (Katsaros v. Greece, no. 51473/99, §§ 33-35, 6 June 2002); restore property or pay compensation (Jasiuniene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, §§ 28-32, 6 March 2003, and Sabin Popescu v. Romania, no. 48102/99, §§ 68-76, 2 March 2004); demolish buildings (Kyrtatos v. Greece, no. 41666/98, §§ 31-32, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts), and Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, §§ 65-73, 17 June 2003); evict persons from a building (Prodan v. Moldova, no. 49806/99, §§ 50-56, ECHR 2004-III (extracts)); grant access to public documents (Kenedi v. Hungary, no. 31475/05, §§ 35-39, 26 May 2009); bring industrial and other activities to an end (Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, §§ 135-138, ECHR 2004-X, and Okyay and Others v. Turkey, no. 36220/97, §§ 72-74, ECHR 2005-VII); employ a person (Castren-Niniou v. Greece, no. 43837/02, §§ 25-28, 9 June 2005); and hand over adopted children to their parents (Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, §§ 174-189, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 41510/98

    JASIUNIENE v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 31833/06
    By way of example, such cases have related to failure to: pay a debt or compensation (Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 36-38, ECHR 2002-III; Timofeyev v. Russia, no. 58263/00, §§ 40-43, 23 October 2003; Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, §§ 25-26, 27 May 2004; and Simaldone v. Italy, no. 22644/03, §§ 48-56, 31 March 2009); comply with the annulment of an expropriation order (Katsaros v. Greece, no. 51473/99, §§ 33-35, 6 June 2002); restore property or pay compensation (Jasiuniene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, §§ 28-32, 6 March 2003, and Sabin Popescu v. Romania, no. 48102/99, §§ 68-76, 2 March 2004); demolish buildings (Kyrtatos v. Greece, no. 41666/98, §§ 31-32, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts), and Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, §§ 65-73, 17 June 2003); evict persons from a building (Prodan v. Moldova, no. 49806/99, §§ 50-56, ECHR 2004-III (extracts)); grant access to public documents (Kenedi v. Hungary, no. 31475/05, §§ 35-39, 26 May 2009); bring industrial and other activities to an end (Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, §§ 135-138, ECHR 2004-X, and Okyay and Others v. Turkey, no. 36220/97, §§ 72-74, ECHR 2005-VII); employ a person (Castren-Niniou v. Greece, no. 43837/02, §§ 25-28, 9 June 2005); and hand over adopted children to their parents (Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, §§ 174-189, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 31475/05

    KENEDI v. HUNGARY

  • EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 22644/03

    SIMALDONE c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 22.05.2003 - 41666/98

    KYRTATOS c. GRECE

  • EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 36220/97

    OKYAY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 23.10.2003 - 58263/00

    TIMOFEYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 43837/02

    CASTREN-NINIOU c. GRECE

  • EGMR, 30.08.2007 - 44302/02

    J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LTD ET J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LAND LTD c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 78028/01

    PINI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 26937/04

    TRESKA c. ALBANIE ET ITALIE

  • EGMR - 23516/08 (anhängig)

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 746/02

    TACEA c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 48335/99

    SANLES SANLES contre l'ESPAGNE

  • EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 32963/02

    BITENC v. SLOVENIA

  • EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 40450/04

    YURIY NIKOLAYEVICH IVANOV v. UKRAINE

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 22.06.2016 - C-41/15

    Dowling u.a.

    und Cingillioglu gegen Türkei, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0721JUD003183306, Rn. 49 bis 51 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung.
  • EGMR, 26.03.2020 - 35322/12

    NIKOLOUDAKIS c. GRÈCE

    Toutefois, dans de telles situations, l'État doit, de bonne foi et de sa propre initiative, examiner des solutions alternatives telles que l'octroi d'une indemnité (Cingilli Holding A.?ž. et Cingillioglu c. Turquie (fond), nos 31833/06 et 37538/06, § 41, 21 juillet 2015).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht