Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BEÇAJ v. ALBANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BEÇAJ v. ALBANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 1542/13

  Having regard to the order of events as set out in paragraphs 18 to 20 above, the Court has decided to raise of its own motion the question of the respondent State's compliance with its obligation under Article 34 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 468, ECHR 2005-III), which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:.
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 1542/13

  However, unlike previous cases, where an official from the local military prosecutor's office had paid the applicant a visit (Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, § 162, ECHR 2012 (extracts)), or where the applicant had been directly contacted by State officials with regard to his complaints brought before the Court (Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 250, 13 July 2006), or where the applicant had been forced by State officials to write a statement withdrawing his application before the Court (Knyazev v. Russia, no. 25948/05, §§ 112-19, 8 November 2007), the present case concerned an isolated incident on the part of the authorities, in writing, to request the applicant to withdraw her application.
• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04

  YEVGENIY ALEKSEYENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 1542/13

  At the same time, steps taken by a State in the context of settlement negotiations with an applicant should not take on any form of pressure, intimidation or coercion (see Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia, no. 41833/04, §§ 172-73, 27 January 2011).

• EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 32907/07

  GJYLI CONTRE L'ALBANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 1542/13

  Irrespective of the nature of provisional enforcement of a domestic decision under domestic law, it is the Court's established case-law that Article 6 protects the enforcement of final and binding judicial decisions, and not decisions which may be subject to subsequent review by a higher court and, eventually, quashed (see Gjyli v. Albania, no. 32907/07, § 33, 29 September 2009).
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 46744/07

  CHARALAMBOUS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 1542/13

  46744/07, 16622/08, 29673/08, 37368/08, 45656/08, 4584/10, 4649/10, 4852/05, 5189/10, 5210/08, 5247/08, 5270/08, 5277/08, 5281/08, 59490/09, 60676/08, 60678/08, 60688/08, 60696/08, 60719/08, 60734/08, 60742/08, 60771/08, 6081/10, 7048/08, 7086/08, 7439/08, 7512/08, 7839/10, § 74, 3 April 2012).
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

  AKDENIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 1542/13

  The Court would emphasise that it is in principle not appropriate for the authorities of a respondent State to enter into direct contact with an applicant with a view to securing the applicant's unilateral withdrawal of his or her application (see, mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others, cited above, §§ 104-06; Kurt, cited above, §§ 161-65; Ryabov, cited above, §§ 59-65; Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, § 51, 13 April 2006; Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, §§ 118-121, 31 May 2001; Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, §§ 169-171, Reports 1998-VIII; and Ergi v. Turkey, 28 July 1998, § 105, Reports 1998-IV).
• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 25948/05

  KNYAZEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 1542/13

  However, unlike previous cases, where an official from the local military prosecutor's office had paid the applicant a visit (Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, § 162, ECHR 2012 (extracts)), or where the applicant had been directly contacted by State officials with regard to his complaints brought before the Court (Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 250, 13 July 2006), or where the applicant had been forced by State officials to write a statement withdrawing his application before the Court (Knyazev v. Russia, no. 25948/05, §§ 112-19, 8 November 2007), the present case concerned an isolated incident on the part of the authorities, in writing, to request the applicant to withdraw her application.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.10.2025 - 74995/17

  PLATON v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The Court therefore decides not to pursue the matter (see, for instance, Becaj v. Albania (dec.), no. 1542/13, § 44, 24 June 2014).
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 14521/05

  [ENG]

  46744/07, 16622/08, 29673/08, 37368/08, 45656/08, 4584/10, 4649/10, 4852/05, 5189/10, 5210/08, 5247/08, 5270/08, 5277/08, 5281/08, 59490/09, 60676/08, 60678/08, 60688/08, 60696/08, 60719/08, 60734/08, 60742/08, 60771/08, 6081/10, 7048/08, 7086/08, 7439/08, 7512/08, 7839/10, § 74, 3 April 2012; and Beçaj v. Albania (dec.), no. 1542/13, § 44, 24 June 2014).
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 4133/16

  AHMET TUNÇ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court therefore decides not to pursue the matter (see, mutatis mutandis, Egmez v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 12214/07, § 70, 18 September 2012, and Beçaj v. Albania (dec.), no. 1542/13, § 44, 24 June 2014).

• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 5794/13

  S.N. AND T.D. v. LATVIA

  Having regard to the above considerations, the Court concludes that there is no basis to pursue the matter (see, for example, Beçaj v. Albania (dec.), no. 1542/13, 24 June 2014).
• EGMR, 18.11.2025 - 4952/20

  KUJXHIJA v. ALBANIA

  Rn. 11 The Court notes, firstly, that both Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention protect the enforcement of final and binding judgments - not judgments that may be subject to review by a higher court and, eventually, quashed (see Kural v. Türkiye, no. 84388/17, § 27, 19 March 2024; Gjyli v. Albania, no. 32907/07, § 33, 29 September 2009, and Beçaj v. Albania (dec.), no. 1542/13, §§ 31-33, 24 June 2014), irrespective of whether the lower court's decision was already enforceable under domestic law (see Ouzounis and Others v. Greece, no. 49144/99, § 21, 18 April 2002, and Gjyli, cited above, §§ 32-33).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 9728/05

  [ENG]

  46744/07, 16622/08, 29673/08, 37368/08, 45656/08, 4584/10, 4649/10, 4852/05, 5189/10, 5210/08, 5247/08, 5270/08, 5277/08, 5281/08, 59490/09, 60676/08, 60678/08, 60688/08, 60696/08, 60719/08, 60734/08, 60742/08, 60771/08, 6081/10, 7048/08, 7086/08, 7439/08, 7512/08, 7839/10, § 74, 3 April 2012, and Beçaj v. Albania (dec.), no. 1542/13, § 44, 24 June 2014).