Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VOYTENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings ...

Wird zitiert von ... (24)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 41510/98

  JASIUNIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 18966/02

  The Court recalls its case-law that the impossibility for an applicant to obtain the execution of a judgment in his or her favour constitutes an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, as set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III; JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 45, 6 March 2003).

• EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 6164/05

  KRIPAK v. UKRAINE

  The Court recalls that it has already examined similar issues and gave a judgment on them (see, for instance, Zubko and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 3955/04, 5622/04, 8538/04 and 11418/04, ECHR 2006-... (extracts), Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, 29 June 2004 and Bagriy and Krivanich v. Ukraine, nos.

  Furthermore, the Court recalls that a judgment debt constitutes possession for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and, accordingly, it is applicable in the present case (see, Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 51-54, 29 June 2004).

  The Court recalls that it has already found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the present application (see, for instance, Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, 29 June 2004, Zubko and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 3955/04, 5622/04, 8538/04 and 11418/04, ECHR 2006-... (extracts), and Bagriy and Krivanich v. Ukraine, nos.

• EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 20988/02

  SYLENOK AND TEKHNOSERVIS-PLUS v. UKRAINE

  Relevant domestic law concerning the applicant company's complaints is summarised in Voytenko v. Ukraine (no. 18966/02, §§ 20-22, 29 June 2004).

  The Court reiterates its case-law that impossibility for an applicant to obtain enforcement of a judgment in his or her favour constitutes an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, as set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III; JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 45, 6 March 2003; and Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 53-55, 29 June 2004).

• EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 21050/02

  KISLAYA v. UKRAINE

  The Court recalls its case-law that the impossibility for an applicant to obtain the enforcement of a judgment in his or her favour constitutes an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, as set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III; JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 45, 6 March 2003 and Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 53-55, 29 June 2004).

  The Court concludes that the applicant did not have an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, whereby she could have obtained a ruling upholding her right to have her claims finally settled within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see e.g. Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 46-48, 29 June 2004 and Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, § 64, 18 July 2006).

 
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 20728/04

  KOOPERATIV KAKHOVSKIY-5 v. UKRAINE

  Regard being had to its case-law on the subject (see, for example, Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 46-48, 29 June 2004, and Vasylyev v. Ukraine, no. 10232/02, § 41, 13 July 2006), the Court finds that there has been a breach of Article 13.

  The Court reiterates the findings in its case-law that the impossibility for an applicant to obtain the enforcement of a judgment in his or her favour constitutes an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, as set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III; JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 45, 6 March 2003 and Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 53-55, 29 June 2004).

• EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 33892/04

  TISHCHENKO c. UKRAINE

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a traité à maintes reprises les affaires soulevant des questions semblables à celles du cas d'espèce et a conclu à la violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention et de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (voir Voïtenko c. Ukraine, no 18966/02, 29 juin 2004 et Bagri et Krivanitch c. Ukraine, nos 12023/04 et 12096/04, 9 novembre 2006).

  La Cour a déjà traité d'affaires soulevant la question semblable à celle du cas d'espèce et a constaté la violation de l'article 13 de la Convention (voir, par exemple, les arrêts Voïtenko c. Ukraine, no 18966/02, § 46-48, 29 juin 2004 ; Romashov c. Ukraine, no 67534/01, § 47, 27 juillet 2004).

• EGMR, 22.11.2007 - 29875/02

  ZAICHENKO v. UKRAINE

  The Court concludes that the applicant did not have an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, whereby he could have obtained a ruling upholding his right to have his claims finally settled within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see e.g. Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 46-48, 29 June 2004 and Vasylyev v. Ukraine, cited above, § 41).

  The Court recalls its case-law that the impossibility for an applicant to obtain the enforcement of a judgment in his or her favour constitutes an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, as set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III; JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 45, 6 March 2003 and Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 53-55, 29 June 2004).

• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 73970/01

  SACALEANU c. ROUMANIE

  Le Gouvernement considère qu'en l'espèce, le retard dans l'exécution des décisions judiciaires favorables à la requérante n'est pas déraisonnable selon la jurisprudence de la Cour en la matière (Voytenko c. Ukraine, no 18966/02, § 40, 29 juin 2004).

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà considéré que l'omission des autorités de se conformer dans un délai raisonnable à une décision définitive peut entraîner une violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention, surtout quand l'obligation de faire exécuter la décision en cause appartient à une autorité administrative (voir, mutatis mutandis, Metaxas c. Grèce, no 8415/02, § 26, 27 mai 2004 ; Burdov c. Russie, no 59498/00, §§ 36-38, CEDH 2002-III ; Timofeyev c. Russie, no 58263/00, §§ 41-42, 23 octobre 2003 ; Prodan c. Moldavie, no 49806/99, §§ 54-55, 18 mai 2004 ; Luntre et autres c Moldavie, no 2916/02, §§ 40-41, 15 juin 2004 ; Romashov c. Ukraine, no 67534/01, § 27, 27 juillet 2004 ; Voïtenko c. Ukraine, no 18966/02, § 35, 29 juin 2004 et Dubenko c. Ukraine, no 74221/01, § 36, 11 janvier 2005).

• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 37758/05

  PERETYATKO v. UKRAINE

  Furthermore, the Court recalls that a judgment debt constitutes a possession for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and, accordingly, it is applicable in the present case (see Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 51-54, 29 June 2004).

  The Court recalls that it has already found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the present application (see, for instance, Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, 29 June 2004, and Pivnenko v. Ukraine, no. 36369/04, 12 October 2006).

• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 29979/04

  RYSOVSKYY v. UKRAINE

  As regards the first aspect, it is the Court's settled case-law that, as a general rule, failure of the State authorities to provide an applicant with a property awarded to him or her by a final court judgment constitutes an interference incompatible with the guarantees set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III; JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 45, 6 March 2003; and Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 53-55, 29 June 2004).
• EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 51752/10

  KAVALIAUSKAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  The Court has already held that a lack of funds may not be cited as a reason for the authorities" failure to comply with their obligations (see, mutatis mutandis, Prodan v. Moldova, no. 49806/99, § 53, ECHR 2004-III (extracts)), and has also found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in cases where the failure to pay resulted from a parliament's failure to provide for the necessary means in the State budget (see, mutatis mutandis, Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 41-43, 29 June 2004, and Dolneanu v. Moldova, no. 17211/03, § 31, 13 November 2007).
• EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 50609/10

  KIRAKOSYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 746/02

  TACEA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 17211/03

  DOLNEANU v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 43543/14

  VLASTARIS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 62904/12

  FIDANYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 15.06.2017 - 66328/12

  DNGIKYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 18.05.2017 - 75651/11

  NIKOGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 36218/08

  VLASTOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 24335/03

  USTIMOVA c. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 31387/05

  VASILCHUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 4078/03

  CHUKHAS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 36655/02

  SMIRNOVA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 23878/02

  STRUNGARIU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 7205/11

  PAPOYAN v. ARMENIA