Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MACOVEI AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-1 (legal certainty and right to a court) Not necessary to examine complaint under Art. 13 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses awards - ...

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 19253/03

  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, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 31365/96

  VARBANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 19253/03

  Insofar as the Government's objection concerning the abuse of the right of petition is concerned, the Court considers that an application would not normally be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention on the basis that it was "offensive" or "defamatory" unless it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see the Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 49, 18 January 2005; Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X or Rehak v. the Czech Republic, (dec.), no 67208/01, 18 May 2004).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67208/01

  REHÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 19253/03

  Insofar as the Government's objection concerning the abuse of the right of petition is concerned, the Court considers that an application would not normally be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention on the basis that it was "offensive" or "defamatory" unless it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see the Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 49, 18 January 2005; Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X or Rehak v. the Czech Republic, (dec.), no 67208/01, 18 May 2004).
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01

  POPOV v. MOLDOVA (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 19253/03

  Insofar as the Government's objection concerning the abuse of the right of petition is concerned, the Court considers that an application would not normally be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention on the basis that it was "offensive" or "defamatory" unless it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see the Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 49, 18 January 2005; Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X or Rehak v. the Czech Republic, (dec.), no 67208/01, 18 May 2004).

• EGMR, 13.02.2007 - 31535/03

  VENERA-NORD-VEST BORTA A.G. v. MOLDOVA

  Such a proposal therefore cannot be considered appropriate redress or as a basis on which to strike an application out of the list of cases (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-VII and Macovei and Others v. Moldova, nos. 19253/03, 17667/03, 31960/03, 19263/03, 17695/03 and 31761/03, § 36 and 37, 25 April 2006).
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 77546/12

  IMPERIALEX GRUP S.R.L. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Les dispositions légales pertinentes concernant la révision des décisions définitives sont résumées dans les affaires Popov c. République de Moldova (no 2) (no 19960/04, §§ 27-29, 6 décembre 2005), Macovei et autres c. République de Moldova (nos 19253/03 et 5 autres, §§ 17 et 18, 25 avril 2006) et Jomiru et Cretu c. République de Moldova (no 28430/06 [comité], §§ 26 et 27, 17 avril 2012).