Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TARVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 33343/03

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 33343/03

  Moreover, the outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the civil right in question (see, for example, Stojakovic v. Austria, no. 30003/02, § 38, 9 November 2006, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 27, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 33343/03

  The Court further emphasises that the domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR-XI).

 
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 33343/03

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 30003/02

  STOJAKOVIC v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 33343/03

  Moreover, the outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the civil right in question (see, for example, Stojakovic v. Austria, no. 30003/02, § 38, 9 November 2006, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 27, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 74826/01

  SHOFMAN CONTRE LA FEDERATION DE RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 33343/03

  In general, it is primarily for the State concerned to choose the means to be used in its domestic legal order in order to discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention (see Shofman v. Russia, no. 74826/01, § 53, 24 November 2005, with further references).
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 33343/03

  By finding a violation of Article 6 § 1 in the present case, the Court has established the Government's obligation to take appropriate measures to remedy the applicant's individual situation, i.e. ensure the compliance with the applicant's enforceable claim under the judgment of 20 August 2001 (compare with Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 142, ECHR 2005-...).

• EGMR, 22.09.2020 - 43301/07

  LVIN v. RUSSIA

  The decision on appropriate measures to enforce the judicial award, or, if this proves impossible, granting the applicant reasonable compensation, or a combination of these and other measures, falls to the respondent State (see, mutandis mutadis, Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, § 66, 26 July 2007).

  The decision on appropriate measures to enforce the judicial award, or, if this proves impossible, granting the applicant's heir Ms Yelena Vadimovna Lvina reasonable compensation, or a combination of these and other measures, falls to the respondent State (see, mutandis mutadis, Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, § 66, 26 July 2007).

• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 36539/08

  SHMATOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Whether this involves taking measures set out in the judgment, or, if this is not possible, granting them reasonable compensation, or a combination of these and other measures, is a decision that falls to the respondent State (see Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, § 66, 26 July 2007, and Ursan v. Romania, no. 35852/04, § 46, 6 April 2010).
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 3360/03

  CHIS v. ROMANIA

  Whether this involves employing the applicant in the job provided by that judgment or in an equivalent job or, if this is not possible, granting him reasonable compensation for non-enforcement, or a combination of these and other measures, is a decision that falls to the respondent State (see Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, § 66, 26 July 2007, and Ursan v. Romania, no. 35852/04, § 46, 6 April 2010).

 
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 43301/07

  LVIN v. RUSSIA

  The decision on appropriate measures to enforce the judicial award, or, if this proves impossible, granting the applicant reasonable compensation, or a combination of these and other measures, falls to the respondent State (see, mutandis mutadis, Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, § 66, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 22764/12

  VANYUKOVA v. RUSSIA

  In this connection, the Court considers that a decision on appropriate measures to enforce the judicial award, or, if this proves impossible, granting the applicant reasonable compensation, or a combination of these and other measures, falls to the respondent State (see, mutandis mutadis, Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, § 66, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 35852/04

  URSAN v. ROMANIA

  Whether this involves reinstating the applicant in her previous job or in an equivalent job or, if this is not possible, granting her reasonable compensation for non-enforcement, or a combination of these and other measures, is a decision that falls to the respondent State (see Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, § 66, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 13652/06

  HUMBATOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Whether such measures would involve restoring the applicant's right of use of the plot in question or providing him with an equivalent plot or, if this proves impossible, granting him reasonable compensation for non-enforcement, or a combination of these and other measures, is a decision that falls to the respondent State (see, mutandis mutadis, Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, § 66, 26 July 2007).