Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18156/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63314) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
TCHITCHINADZE v. GEORGIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Just satisfaction partially reserved Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18156/05
- EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 18156/05
- EGMR, 16.04.2014 - 18156/05
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01
ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18156/05
In any event, the Court reiterates that, normally, the priority under Article 41 of the Convention is restitutio in integrum, as the respondent State is expected to make all feasible reparation for the consequences of the violation in such a manner as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see, among other authorities, Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, § 71, ECHR 2006-XIV; FC Mretebi v. Georgia, no. 38736/04, § 61, 31 July 2007; Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 198). - EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 38736/04
FC MRETEBI v. GEORGIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18156/05
In any event, the Court reiterates that, normally, the priority under Article 41 of the Convention is restitutio in integrum, as the respondent State is expected to make all feasible reparation for the consequences of the violation in such a manner as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see, among other authorities, Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, § 71, ECHR 2006-XIV; FC Mretebi v. Georgia, no. 38736/04, § 61, 31 July 2007; Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 198). - EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88
HENTRICH v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18156/05
Consequently, the applicant was placed in an unjustifiably disadvantageous position vis-à-vis his opponent in the proceedings, which directly affected his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274; Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 56, Series A no. 296-A). - EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88
DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18156/05
Consequently, the applicant was placed in an unjustifiably disadvantageous position vis-à-vis his opponent in the proceedings, which directly affected his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274; Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 56, Series A no. 296-A).