Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CRAVCISIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Tribunal established by law) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Tribunal established by ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CRAVCISIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND OTHERS

  Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 43176/13

  The background to the case, including the Transdniestrian armed conflict of 1991-1992 and the subsequent events, is set out in Ila?Ÿcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-185, ECHR 2004-VII) and Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 43176/13

  An interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2, and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve the aim or aims (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 179, ECHR 2000-IV; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 200, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

  Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 43176/13

  According to the Court's case-law (see among other authorities, Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim ?žirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, § 142, ECHR 2005-VI), such interference constitutes a measure of control of the use of property which falls to be examined under the second paragraph of that Article.
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 43176/13

  An interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2, and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve the aim or aims (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 179, ECHR 2000-IV; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 200, 22 May 2012).

• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 42858/11

  HASANALI ALIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court notes that the applicants were tenants in the flat in question and therefore considers that their claim for its value is not supported by any convincing evidence (see Prokopovich, cited above, § 49; see also, for illustration purposes, Cravcisin v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], no. 43176/13, § 51, 28 September 2021).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 33842/10

  DENISENKO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  In so far as the lawfulness of the interference is concerned, no elements in the present case allow the Court to consider that there was a legal basis for interfering with the rights of the applicant guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see also Turturica and Casian v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 28648/06 and 18832/07, § 49, 30 August 2016; Babchin v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, [Committee] no. 55698/14, § 74, 17 September 2019; Cravcisin v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, [Committee] no. 43176/13, 28 September 2021).