Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARCIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Violation of P1-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 07.06.2005 - 71186/01

  FUKLEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2007 - 17556/05

  It further recalls that it is the Sate's responsibility to make use of all available legal means at its disposal in order to enforce a final court decision, even in cases involving litigation between private parties (see, mutatis mutandis, Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 71186/01, §§ 89-91, 7 June 2005; Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 96, ECHR 2002-VII).

• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 54522/00

  KOTOV v. RUSSIA

  Ce principe a été largement appliqué dans le contexte de procédures d'exécution dirigées contre des débiteurs privés (Fuklev, précité, §§ 89-91, Kesyan, précité, §§ 79-80 ; voir également Kin-Stib et Majkic c. Serbie, no 12312/05, § 84, 20 avril 2010, Marcic et autres c. Serbie, no 17556/05, § 56, 30 octobre 2007, et, mutatis mutandis, Matheus c. France, no 62740/00, §§ 68 et suiv., 31 mars 2005).
• EGMR, 04.02.2014 - 25376/06

  CENI c. ITALIE

  Ce principe a été largement appliqué dans le contexte de procédures d'exécution dirigées contre des débiteurs privés (Fuklev précité [Fuklev c. Ukraine, no 71186/01, 7 juin 2005], §§ 89-91, Kesyan précité [Kesyan c. Russie, no 36496/02, 19 octobre 2006], §§ 79-80 ; voir également Kin-Stib et Majkic c. Serbie, no 12312/05, § 84, 20 avril 2010, Marcic et autres c. Serbie, no 17556/05, § 56, 30 octobre 2007, et, mutatis mutandis, Matheus c. France, no 62740/00, §§ 68 et suiv., 31 mars 2005).
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 46505/19

  ANTONOPOULOU c. GRÈCE

  Ce principe a été largement appliqué dans le contexte de procédures d'exécution dirigées contre des débiteurs privés (Fuklev c. Ukraine, no 71186/01, §§ 89-91, 7 juin 2005, Kesyan c. Russie, no 36496/02, 19 octobre 2006, et Kotov c. Russie [GC], no 54522/00, § 112, CEDH 2012, voir également Kin-Stib et Majkic c. Serbie, no 12312/05, § 84, 20 avril 2010, et Marcic et autres c. Serbie, no 17556/05, § 56, 30 octobre 2007).

 
• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 69997/10

  PANORAMA LTD AND MILICIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  It must, however, be noted that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or of its Protocols imposes on the respondent State 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 its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found (see, Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, §§ 71-73, ECHR 2006, and Marcic and Others v. Serbia, no. 17556/05, §§ 64-65, 30 October 2007).
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 38945/05

  PRALICA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  It must, however, be noted that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or of its Protocols imposes on the respondent State 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 its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found (see Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, §§ 71-73, ECHR 2006, and Marcic and Others v. Serbia, no. 17556/05, §§ 64-65, 30 October 2007).
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 40694/13

  ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF VRHBOSNA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that a judgment in which it finds a violation of the Convention or of its Protocols imposes on the respondent State 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 its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found (see Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, § 71, ECHR 2006-XIV, and Marcic and Others v. Serbia, no. 17556/05, § 64, 30 October 2007).
• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 58385/13

  LJAJIC v. SERBIA

  The domestic law concerning the status of socially/State-owned companies and insolvency proceedings is outlined in the cases of Marcic and Others v. Serbia, no. 17556/05, § 29, 30 October 2007; R. Kacapor and Others v. Serbia, nos.
• EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 12312/05

  KIN-STIB AND MAJKIC v. SERBIA

  Finally, the State must make sure that the execution of such an award is carried out without undue delay and that the overall system is effective both in law and in practice (see Marcic and Others v. Serbia, no. 17556/05, § 56, 30 October 2007).
• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 49915/08

  IGNJATOVIC v. SERBIA

  As regards the pecuniary damage alleged, the Court observes that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or of its Protocols imposes on the respondent State 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 its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found (see Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, §§ 71-73, ECHR 2006-XIV; Marcic and Others, no. 17556/05, §§ 64-65, 30 October 2007; and Pralica v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 38945/05, § 19, 27 January 2009).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9235/11

  NIKOLIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on that account (see Marcic and Others v. Serbia, no. 17556/05, §§ 63, 30 October 2007; Pralica v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 38945/05, § 18, 27 January 2009; and Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, § 70, ECHR 2006).
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 23496/13

  VUKOSAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 38695/13

  KOZUL AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 18372/07

  GUDURIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 29.09.2015 - 33866/11

  BLAGA v. SERBIA