Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VALEANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Respondent State to take ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VALEANU c. ROUMANIE et 30 autres affaires

  Art. 1, Art. 14Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [FRE]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 59012/17, 12854/18, 28856/18, 32541/18, 38992/18, 40167/18, 42182/18, 45732/18, 47070/18, 52852/18, 59503/18, 1369/19, 2556/19, 16060/19, 16337/19, 19364/19, 20341/19, 21500/19, 23253/19, 23256/19, 25811/19, 27761/19, 28615/19, 33596/19, 34359/19, 34474/1
• EGMR, 07.01.2025 - 59012/17

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• VK Rheinland-Pfalz, 27.05.2005 - 15/05

  Nachprüfungsverfahren: Antragsbefugnis trotz fehlender Angebotsabgabe

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 59012/17

  15/05/2019.
• KAG Aachen, 08.08.2006 - 18/06

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 59012/17

  18/06/2019.
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 59012/17

  The Court reiterates that Article 46 of the Convention, as interpreted in the light of Article 1, imposes on the respondent States a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress as far as possible the effects (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII).

• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 33771/02

  DRIZA c. ALBANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 59012/17

  To that avail, the respondent State should ensure that appropriate budgetary measures are taken so as to provide adequate funds in respect of those claimants who are entitled to receive compensation in value (see, mutatis mutandis, Driza v. Albania, no. 33771/02, § 126, ECHR 2007-V (extracts).
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 01.04.2005 - 16/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 59012/17

  16/04/2019.
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 75951/01

  VIASU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 59012/17

  Admittedly, this approach is the general domestic standard in tort law proceedings, applicable also to routine non-enforcement cases; however, in the particular field of non-enforcement of outstanding judgments by the State authorities, which, moreover, deal with restitution claims, such an assessment appears to be irrelevant, in view of the general principles laid out in the Court's case-law on the matter, finding the State authority liable to promptly and diligently enforce with no further action required on the part of the creditor and thus excluding the relevance of any assessment of the good or bad faith in the non-enforcement complained of (see, for instance, Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu v. Romania, nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07, §§ 58-60, 7 January 2014, and, concerning restitution in particular, Viaşu v. Romania, no. 75951/01, §§ 71-72, 9 December 2008; and, mutatis mutandis, Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania, nos.
• EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 2699/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 59012/17

  Admittedly, this approach is the general domestic standard in tort law proceedings, applicable also to routine non-enforcement cases; however, in the particular field of non-enforcement of outstanding judgments by the State authorities, which, moreover, deal with restitution claims, such an assessment appears to be irrelevant, in view of the general principles laid out in the Court's case-law on the matter, finding the State authority liable to promptly and diligently enforce with no further action required on the part of the creditor and thus excluding the relevance of any assessment of the good or bad faith in the non-enforcement complained of (see, for instance, Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu v. Romania, nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07, §§ 58-60, 7 January 2014, and, concerning restitution in particular, Viaşu v. Romania, no. 75951/01, §§ 71-72, 9 December 2008; and, mutatis mutandis, Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania, nos.
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 69735/11

  VUKUSIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 59012/17

  In the context of the revocation of a title which has been granted erroneously, the "good governance" principle may not only impose on the authorities an obligation to act promptly in correcting their mistake, but may also necessitate the payment of adequate compensation or another type of appropriate reparation to its former good-faith holder (see Vukušić v. Croatia, no. 69735/11, § 64, 31 May 2016, and all the references cited therein, including Toşcuţă and Others v. Romania, no. 36900/03, § 38, 25 November 2008).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• VG Hamburg, 14.10.2021 - 16 AE 3237/21

  Afghanistan: Dublin Kroatien: keine Pushbacks für Dublin-Rückkehrer, Familie und …

  Es bestehen für Asylsuchende, zu denen auch die Dublin-Rückkehrer zählen, [aa)] und Schutzberechtigte [bb)] nach Rechtsprechung der Kammer in Kroatien keine sehr schlechten humanitären Bedingungen, nach denen eine unmenschliche oder erniedrigende Behandlung im Sinne von Art. 3 EMRK drohte (so auch: VG Hamburg, 16 A 2375/19, Urt. v. 9.6.2020, n.v.; 19 AE 1369/19, Beschl. v. 26.4.2019, n.v.; VG München M 30 S 21.50068, Beschl. v. 25.2.2021, juris Rn. 19 ff.; VG Trier, 7 K 3079/20.TR, Urt. v. 19.11.2020, juris S. 6 ff.; VG Gießen, 2 L 3827/20.GI.A, Beschl. v. 16.11.2020, juris, S. 5 ff.; VG Augsburg,.
• EGMR, 08.10.2024 - 13991/20

  MICHA c. GRÈCE

  Rn. 63 Il ressort clairement de la jurisprudence de la Cour que lorsqu'elle constate une violation découlant d'une situation à caractère structurel touchant un grand nombre de personnes, des mesures générales au niveau national s'imposent dans le cadre de l'exécution de ses arrêts (voir, par exemple, Broniowski c. Pologne [GC], no 31443/96, §§ 188-194, CEDH 2004-V, et Văleanu et autres c. Roumanie, nos 59012/17 et 27 autres, §§ 269-273, 8 novembre 2022).
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 46201/16

  OBSTEA DE PADURE PORCENI PLESA c. ROUMANIE

  Il s'ensuit que ce droit à dédommagement peut être qualifié de « bien'étant donné qu'il fait l'objet d'une créance certaine, ayant une base légale (paragraphes 18 et 21 ci-dessus), que son montant a été déterminé par les autorités administratives compétentes (paragraphes 10 et 14 ci-dessus) et qu'il n'a été contesté, ni quant à son existence, ni quant à son étendue, lors des procédures judiciaires internes relatives à la cause (voir, mutatis mutandis, Văleanu et autres c. Roumanie, nos 59012/17 et 27 autres, § 230, 8 novembre 2022, et, a contrario, Denisov c. Ukraine [GC], no 76639/11, § 137, 25 septembre 2018, et Marčan c. Croatie, (déc.), no 67390/10, §§ 32-42, 20 octobre 2016).