Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GURURYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, P Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 11456/05

  It further reiterates that a "claim" can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 59, Series A no. 301-B).
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

  KOROLEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 11456/05

  The Court has previously held that this criterion applies where, notwithstanding a potential violation of a right from a purely legal point of view, the level of severity attained does not warrant consideration by an international court (see Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, 1 July 2010, and Gaftoniuc v. Romania (dec.), no. 30934/05, 22 February 2011).
• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 11456/05

  The Court reiterates that execution of a judgment given by any court is an integral part of the "trial" for the purpose of Article 6 of the Convention and a delay in the execution must not be such as to impair the essence of the right to a court protected by that Article (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 34 and 35, ECHR 2002-III).

• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 36659/04

  IONESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 11456/05

  However, having regard to the entry into force of Protocol No. 14, the Court finds it necessary to examine of its own motion whether in this respect it should apply the new inadmissibility criterion provided for in Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention as amended (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 36659/04, § 30, 1 June 2010).
• EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 8415/02

  METAXAS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 11456/05

  It points out, however, that a person who has obtained an enforceable judgment against the State as a result of successful litigation cannot be required to resort to enforcement proceedings in order to have it executed (see Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004; Koltsov, cited above, § 16; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 89, ECHR 2006-V; Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova, cited above, § 20; and Trapeznikova v. Russia, no. 21539/02, § 93, 11 December 2008).
• EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 23405/03

  REYNBAKH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 11456/05

  Hence, it was incumbent on the State to comply with it as soon as the judgment became enforceable, regardless of the fact whether the applicant had requested institution of enforcement proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, § 24, 29 September 2005, and Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova, cited above, § 20).
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 21539/02

  TRAPEZNIKOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 11456/05

  It points out, however, that a person who has obtained an enforceable judgment against the State as a result of successful litigation cannot be required to resort to enforcement proceedings in order to have it executed (see Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004; Koltsov, cited above, § 16; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 89, ECHR 2006-V; Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova, cited above, § 20; and Trapeznikova v. Russia, no. 21539/02, § 93, 11 December 2008).
• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 34784/02

  VASILCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 11456/05

  Finally, it observes that the applicant's case was duly considered by a domestic tribunal within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) as evidenced by the judgment of 18 February 2005 (see Vasilchenko v. Russia, no. 34784/02, § 49, 23 September 2010).
• EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 30934/05

  GAFTONIUC v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 11456/05

  The Court has previously held that this criterion applies where, notwithstanding a potential violation of a right from a purely legal point of view, the level of severity attained does not warrant consideration by an international court (see Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, 1 July 2010, and Gaftoniuc v. Romania (dec.), no. 30934/05, 22 February 2011).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 48335/99

  SANLES SANLES contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 11456/05

  The present case must therefore be distinguished from the cases in which an application was introduced on behalf of the deceased person by his next-of-kin or heirs (see, for example, Sanles Sanles v. Spain (dec.), no. 48335/99, ECHR 2000-XI; Marie-Louise Loyen and Bruneel v. France, no. 55929/00, §§ 21-22, 5 July 2005; Fairfield v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24790/04, ECHR 2005-VI; Biç and Others v. Turkey, no. 55955/00, §§ 17 and 20-21, 2 February 2006; and Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, §§ 33 and 49, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 08.03.2005 - 24790/04

  FAIRFIELD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 55929/00

  MARIE-LOUISE LOYEN ET AUTRE c. FRANCE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.02.2014 - 59834/09

  SHCHUKIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court has previously found a lack of "significant disadvantage" in the cases, where the amount in question was equal or inferior to roughly EUR 500 (see, for instance, Gururyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 11456/05, 24 January 2012; Ștefanescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 11774/04, 12 April 2011).
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 35995/09

  MALAKHOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court has previously found a lack of "significant disadvantage" in the cases, where the amount in question was equal or inferior to roughly EUR 500 (see, for instance, Gururyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 11456/05, 24 January 2012; Ștefanescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 11774/04, 12 April 2011).
• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 72631/10

  NECHEPORENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court agrees with the Government's position that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, and rejects it pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Andreyenko and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 22312/03, 19 June 2007; Gururyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 11456/05, 24 January 2012).

• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 36762/06

  SHTEFAN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court has previously found a lack of "significant disadvantage" in the cases, where delay concerned the payment of a relatively small award (see, for instance, Gururyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 11456/05, 24 January 2012; Ștefanescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 11774/04, 12 April 2011).
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 40934/06

  MAKARA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court recalls that it has previously found a lack of "significant disadvantage" in the cases, where the amount in question was equal or inferior to roughly EUR 500 (see, for instance, Gururyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 11456/05, 24 January 2012; Ștefanescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 11774/04, 12 April 2011).
• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 54552/09

  KHVOROSTYANOY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court has previously found a lack of "significant disadvantage" in the cases, where the amount in question was equal or inferior to roughly EUR 500 (see, for instance, Gururyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 11456/05, 24 January 2012 - the case of salary arrears of AMD 102, 889 - the equivalent in euro was not given in the decision itself, but it was equivalent to approximately EUR 200; Ștefanescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 11774/04, 12 April 2011 - failure to reimburse EUR 125).
• EGMR, 07.09.2021 - 40761/19

  BARTOLO v. MALTA

  The Court observes that as far as insignificant financial impact was concerned, the Court has thus far found a lack of "significant disadvantage" in many cases, under various provisions, where the amount in question was equal or inferior to roughly EUR 500 (see for example, see Adrian Mihai Ionescu; Korolev; Rinck; and Kiousi, all cited above, as well as, inter alia, Burov v. Moldova (dec.,), no. 38875/03, 14 June 2011; Fernandez v. France (dec.), no. 65421/10, 17 January 2012; Bazelyuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 489275/05, 27 March 2012; and Gururyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 11456/05, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 12895/08

  KHAYNATSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court has previously found a lack of "significant disadvantage" in the cases, where the amount in question was equal or inferior to roughly EUR 500 (see, for instance, Gururyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 11456/05, 24 January 2012; Ștefanescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 11774/04, 12 April 2011).
• EGMR, 09.10.2025 - 69154/17

  IMPARATO ET FERRARA c. ITALIE

  Rn. 14 En l'occurrence, elle observe que la créance ne saurait pas être considéré de faible montant (voir Živić c. Serbie, no 37204/08, § 39, 13 septembre 2011, D'Amico c. Italie, no 46586/14, § 28, 17 février 2022 et, a contrario, Shtefan et autres c. Ukraine (déc.), nos 36762/06 et 249 autres, § 30, 31 juillet 2014) et sa nature de rémunération d'une activité professionnelle, uni au retard du paiement de presque six ans objet du présent litige, (voir Gaglione et autres c. Italie, nos 45867/07 et 69 autres, § 17, 21 décembre 2010 et, a contrario, Gururyan c. Arménie (déc.), no 11456/05, § 61, 24 janvier 2012), ne permettent pas de conclure que le requérant n'ait pas subi de préjudice important.
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 52932/07

  RUDYK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court has previously found a lack of "significant disadvantage" in the cases, where the amount in question was equal or inferior to roughly EUR 500 (see, for instance, Gururyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 11456/05, 24 January 2012 - the case of salary arrears of AMD 102, 889 - the equivalent in euro was not given in the decision itself, but it was equivalent to approximately EUR 200; Ștefanescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 11774/04, 12 April 2011 - failure to reimburse EUR 125).
• EGMR, 03.11.2016 - 25250/16

  SVYSTUN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE