Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BESHIRI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (non-enforcement) Not necessary to examine Art. 13 Violation of P1-1 Remainder inadmissible Damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 7352/03

  In addition, if one or more heads of damage cannot be calculated precisely or if the distinction between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage proves difficult, the Court may decide to make a global assessment (see Comingersoll v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 7352/03

  By way of contrast, the hope of recognition of a property right which it has been impossible to exercise effectively cannot be considered a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition (see Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, §§ 82 and 83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

  SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 7352/03

  (b) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee the right to acquire property (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48, and Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II).

 
• EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 8415/02

  METAXAS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 7352/03

  In particular, as to the Government's argument relating to the applicants" failure to initiate enforcement proceedings, the Court reiterates that a person who has obtained an enforceable judgment against the State as a result of successful litigation cannot be required to resort to enforcement proceedings in order to have it executed (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 89, ECHR 2006; Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004; Koltsov v. Russia, no. 41304/02, § 16, 24 February 2005; and Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 18, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 36494/02

  PETRUSHKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 7352/03

  In particular, as to the Government's argument relating to the applicants" failure to initiate enforcement proceedings, the Court reiterates that a person who has obtained an enforceable judgment against the State as a result of successful litigation cannot be required to resort to enforcement proceedings in order to have it executed (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 89, ECHR 2006; Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004; Koltsov v. Russia, no. 41304/02, § 16, 24 February 2005; and Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 18, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 41304/02

  KOLTSOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 7352/03

  In particular, as to the Government's argument relating to the applicants" failure to initiate enforcement proceedings, the Court reiterates that a person who has obtained an enforceable judgment against the State as a result of successful litigation cannot be required to resort to enforcement proceedings in order to have it executed (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 89, ECHR 2006; Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004; Koltsov v. Russia, no. 41304/02, § 16, 24 February 2005; and Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 18, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 02.03.2005 - 71916/01

  Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetzes über die Wiedergutmachung von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 7352/03

  71916/01, 71917/01 and 10260/02, § 74, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 7352/03

  As to the applicants" submission that they had no effective remedy at their disposal in respect of the above complaint, the Court reiterates that Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23,§ 52).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 7352/03

  The Court's role is confined to ascertaining whether the proceedings considered as a whole were fair (see, mutatis mutandis, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, § 34, and García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 19589/92

  BRITISH-AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 7352/03

  It notes that the applicants" complaint under Article 13 is essentially based on the same lack of procedural protection which has already been found to have given rise to a violation of Article 6 (see, mutatis mutandis, British-American Tobacco Company Ltd. v. the Netherlands, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 331, p. 29, § 91).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 6397/04

  BUSHATI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  The relevant sections of the Constitution of Albania have been set out in Beshiri and Others v. Albania (no. 7352/03, § 20, 22 August 2006).

  The relevant sections of the Property (Restitution and Compensation) Act have been set out in Beshiri and Others v. Albania (no. 7352/03, §§ 21-29, 22 August 2006); Driza v. Albania (no. 33771/02, §§ 36-43, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Ramadhi and Others v. Albania (no. 38222/02, §§ 23-30, 13 November 2007).

• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 2141/03

  VRIONI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  The relevant sections of the Property (Restitution and Compensation) Act have been described in Beshiri and Others v. Albania (no. 7352/03, §§ 21-29, 22 August 2006), Driza v. Albania (no. 33771/02, §§ 36-43, ECHR 2007-... (extracts) and Ramadhi and Others v. Albania (no. 38222/02, §§ 23-30, 13 November 2007).

  The Court reiterates its findings in Balliu v. Albania (dec.), no. 74727/01, 30 September 2004, subsequently confirmed in the Beshiri and Others v. Albania judgment (no. 7352/03, § 32, 22 August 2006), in which it held that a complaint to the Albanian Constitutional Court could be considered an effective remedy which had to be used for the purposes of Article 35 of the Convention where fair-trial issues arose.

• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 22493/12

  KOKALARI v. ALBANIA

  It is common ground between the parties that (i) as to Article 6 of the Convention, those proceedings concerned a "right" which could and still can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under Albanian law (see Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania, nos. 604/07 and 3 others, §§ 24-29, 31 July 2012, and Beshiri and Others v. Albania, no. 7352/03, §§ 20-28, 22 August 2006); (ii) after becoming legal heirs in the line of succession vis-à-vis persons who had been claimants in the pending administrative proceedings, the applicants clearly had an interest in respect of the subject-matter of those proceedings and their outcome, and (iii) they joined them as claimants and not merely as other people's (other heirs') representatives.

 
• EGMR, 25.03.2021 - 14013/19

  CAUCHI v. MALTA

  The Court notes that, while it has considered it inappropriate to require an individual who has obtained judgment against the State at the end of legal proceedings to then bring enforcement proceedings to obtain satisfaction (see Musci v. Italy [GC], no. 64699/01, § 90, ECHR 2006-V (extracts), and Beshiri and Others v. Albania, no. 7352/03, § 54, 22 August 2006 and the case-law cited therein), it has nonetheless generally considered that the constitutional jurisdictions are an appropriate forum to complain about non-enforcement of domestic judgments, before bringing proceedings before the Court (see, for example, by implication, Mahmutovic v. Croatia, no. 9505/03, § 21, 15 February 2007, and RiÄ‘ic and Others v. Serbia, nos.
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 46575/09

  BELLIZZI v. MALTA

  Having regard to the above principles and to the conclusion that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is not applicable, the Court considers that Article 14 cannot apply in the instant case (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, § 76, ECHR 2002-VII; and Beshiri and Others v. Albania, no. 7352/03, § 91, 22 August 2006).
• EGMR, 04.09.2012 - 57265/08

  DUMITRU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  S'il est vrai qu'un retard dans l'exécution d'une décision de justice peut se justifier dans des circonstances particulières, ce retard ne saurait être tel que la substance même du droit protégé par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention s'en trouverait affectée (voir, entre autres, Hornsby précité, § 40; JasiÅ«niene c. Lituanie, no 41510/98, § 27, 6 mars 2003 ; Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k. c. Albanie, no 54268/00, § 38, 18 novembre 2004, et Beshiri et autres c. Albanie, no 7352/03, § 60, 22 août 2006).
• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 53488/15

  BECCHETTI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  The Court has already held that a constitutional complaint is, in principle, an effective remedy and is thus required for exhaustion purposes in respect of an applicant's right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Balliu v. Albania (dec.), no. 74727/01, 30 September 2004; Beshiri and Others v. Albania, no. 7352/03, §§ 30-34, 22 August 2006; Jakupi v. Albania (dec.), no. 11186/03, 1 December 2009; and for a similar conclusion, Muçaj v. Albania [Committee], no. 37814/10, § 26, 11 July 2023).
• EGMR, 22.09.2022 - 55949/10

  CHAKVETADZE v. GEORGIA

  A person who has obtained a judgment against the State may not be expected to bring separate enforcement proceedings (see Musci v. Italy [GC], no. 64699/01, § 90, ECHR 2006-V (extracts), and Beshiri and Others v. Albania, no. 7352/03, § 54, 22 August 2006; see also Dadiani and Machabeli v. Georgia, no. 8252/08, §§ 32-34, 12 June 2012, and Eliauri and Others v. Georgia (dec) [Committee], no. 74019/12, § 20, 22 April 2021).
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 7975/06

  KLAUS ET IOURI KILADZE c. GEORGIE

  Pour la Cour, les droits qui furent conférés aux requérants en vertu des articles 8 § 3 et 9 de cette loi avant la ratification du Protocole no 1 subsistaient au moment de la ratification ainsi que, le 22 février 2006, date à laquelle les intéressés présentèrent leur requête à la Cour (Broniowski, précité, § 125 ; von Maltzan et autres c. Allemagne (déc.) [GC] nos 71916/01, 71917/01 et 10260/02, § 74 d) in fine, CEDH 2005-V ; Beshiri et autres c. Albanie, no 7352/03, § 82, 22 août 2006).
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 35720/04

  VRIONI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA AND ITALY

  The relevant sections of the Property (Restitution and Compensation) Act have been described in Beshiri and Others v. Albania (no. 7352/03, §§ 21-29, 22 August 2006), Driza v. Albania (no. 33771/02, §§ 36-43, ECHR 2007-...) and Ramadhi and Others v. Albania (no. 38222/02, §§ 23-30, 13 November 2007).
• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 12306/04

  NURI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 9870/06

  GURGAJ AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 45264/04

  HAMZARAJ v. ALBANIA (No. 1)