Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROSCA v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34, 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 - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 6267/02
• EGMR, 22.03.2005 - 6267/02

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95

  CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2005 - 6267/02

  The Government further cited the cases of Vasilescu v. Romania, (judgment of 22 May 1998, Reports 1998-III) and Constantinescu v. Romania, (no. 28871/95, ECHR 2000-VIII), where the applicants were awarded 30, 000 French francs (FRF) and FRF 15, 000 respectively for non-pecuniary damage.
• EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 60115/00

  Meinungsfreiheit von Rechtsanwälten bei der öffentlichen Kritik von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2005 - 6267/02

  The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Amihalachioaie v. Moldova, no. 60115/00, § 47, ECHR 2004-...).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2005 - 6267/02

  A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX).

• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 35251/04

  COJOCARU c. MOLDOVA

  Il offrit également 2 000 EUR au titre de préjudice moral et indiqua avoir calculé cette compensation en se basant sur les critères établis par l'arrêt Rosca c. Moldova (no 6267/02, 22 mars 2005).

  Aux yeux de la Cour, à partir du moment où le Gouvernement est prêt à rembourser au requérant ladite perte, il serait logique de considérer que l'intéressé a également subi un dommage matériel en raison du fait qu'il n'a pas pu utiliser cette somme d'argent pendant une période prolongée de temps (voir Rosca c. Moldova, no 6267/02, §§ 36 et 37, 22 mars 2005).

  La Cour estime que le requérant a dû également subir un dommage matériel à cause de l'impossibilité d'utiliser jusqu'à présent le salaire dont il a été indûment privé (voir Rosca c. Moldova, no 6267/02, §§ 36 et 37, 22 mars 2005).

• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  WALESA v. POLAND

  The review should not be treated as an ordinary appeal in disguise, and the mere possibility of there being two views on the subject is not a ground for re-examination (see Rosca v. Moldova, no. 6267/02, § 25, 22 March 2005; Agrokompleks v. Ukraine, no. 23465/03, § 148, 6 October 2011; Vardanyan and Nanushyan v. Armenia, no. 8001/07, § 67, 27 October 2016; ?žamat v. Turkey, no. 29115/07, § 53, 21 January 2020; and Tigrak v. Turkey, no. 70306/10, § 48, 6 July 2021).
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 33771/02

  DRIZA c. ALBANIE

  One of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty, which requires, among other things, that where the courts have finally determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII; Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 51-56, ECHR 2003-IX; and Rosca v. Moldova, no. 6267/02, § 24, 22 March 2005).

 
• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 14385/04

  Rechte, die praktisch und wirksam sind

  One of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty, which requires, among other things, that where the courts have finally determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII, and Rosca v. Moldova, no. 6267/02, § 24, 22 March 2005).
• EGMR, 27.10.2016 - 8001/07

  VARDANYAN AND NANUSHYAN v. ARMENIA

  A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX; Rosca v. Moldova, no. 6267/02, § 25, 22 March 2005).
• EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 25575/08

  DRAGOSTEA COPIILOR - PETROVSCHI - NAGORNII v. MOLDOVA

  One of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty, which requires, among other things, that where the courts have finally determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII, and Rosca v. Moldova, no. 6267/02, § 24, 22 March 2005).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 53176/17

  GRAZULEVICIUTE v. LITHUANIA

  A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX; Rosca v. Moldova, no. 6267/02, § 25, 22 March 2005; and Vardanyan and Nanushyan v. Armenia, no. 8001/07, § 67, 27 October 2016).
• EGMR, 05.09.2019 - 39814/12

  AGRO FRIGO OOD v. BULGARIA

  A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX; Ro?Ÿca v. Moldova, no. 6267/02, § 25, 22 March 2005; Giuran v. Romania, no. 24360/04, § 30, ECHR 2011 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 12918/12

  ELECTRONSERVICE-NORD S.A. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  One of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty, which requires, among other things, that where the courts have finally determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII, and Ro??ca v. Moldova, no. 6267/02, § 24, 22 March 2005).
• EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 25763/10

  VIERU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX, and Rosca v. the Republic of Moldova, no 6267/02, § 25, 22 March 2005).
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 7359/06

  AGURDINO S.R.L. v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 03.03.2009 - 75/07

  DUCA v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 29.11.2022 - 49016/10

  BALAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 77546/12

  IMPERIALEX GRUP S.R.L. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 19.05.2020 - 58982/12

  HEROSS LTD v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 30921/10

  GOREMÎCHIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 39818/06

  ASITO v. MOLDOVA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 17328/04

  DESERVIRE S.R.L. v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 24466/03

  URBANOVICI v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 19246/03

  MATEI AND TUTUNARU v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 2141/03

  VRIONI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 75646/01

  RUSU v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 14925/03

  DELIUCHIN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 18893/04

  TIBERNEAC v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 35670/03

  SARATLIC v. CROATIA