Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TURTURICA AND CASIAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property) (Russia);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Positive ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TURTURICA IURIE v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 28648/06

  It notes that the parties in the present case have positions concerning the matter of jurisdiction which are identical to those expressed by the parties in Catan and Others (cited above, §§ 83-101) and in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 81-95, 23 February 2016).

  I have already expressed my dissenting opinion in the Mozer case (Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, ECHR 2016) on the issue of the Russian Federation's effective control over Transdniestria and on the legal tradition as regards the lawfulness of interference with the right to liberty in the form of detention.

• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 28648/06

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

  In Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 64-73, ECHR 2012 (extracts)) the Court summarised the content of various reports by intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations concerning the situation in the Transdniestrian region of Moldova and the Russian military personnel and equipment stationed there between 2003 and 2009.

• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 28648/06

  In these circumstances, the Court finds that there was a clear interference with the applicants' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Consistently with the Court's case-law (see among other authorities, Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi 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, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 28648/06

  For a measure constituting control of use to be justified, it must be lawful (see, Katsaros v. Greece, no. 51473/99, § 43, 6 June 2002; Herrmann v. Germany [GC], no. 9300/07, § 74, 26 June 2012; Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 187, ECHR 2012) and "in accordance with the general interest".
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 19245/03

  UNISTAR VENTURES GMBH v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 28648/06

  In view of its findings under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see paragraphs 39-55 above), the Court does not consider it necessary to examine this complaint separately (see Zanghì v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-C, § 23; Laino v. Italy [GC], no. 33158/96, § 25, ECHR 1999-I; Davidescu v. Romania, no. 2252/02, § 57, 16 November 2006; and Unistar Ventures GmbH v. Moldova, no. 19245/03, § 99, 9 December 2008).
• EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 2252/02

  DAVIDESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 28648/06

  In view of its findings under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see paragraphs 39-55 above), the Court does not consider it necessary to examine this complaint separately (see Zanghì v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-C, § 23; Laino v. Italy [GC], no. 33158/96, § 25, ECHR 1999-I; Davidescu v. Romania, no. 2252/02, § 57, 16 November 2006; and Unistar Ventures GmbH v. Moldova, no. 19245/03, § 99, 9 December 2008).
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 28648/06

  Where, therefore, an applicant avails himself of an apparently existing remedy and only subsequently becomes aware of circumstances which render the remedy ineffective, it may be appropriate for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 to take the start of the six-month period from the date when the applicant first became or ought to have become aware of those circumstances (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, §§ 259-260, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 106, 23 March 2016).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 28648/06

  As they did in Mozer (cited above), the Russian Government expressed the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia (cited above), in Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia, (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011), and in Catan (cited above) was wrong and at variance with public international law.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 29999/04

  MAMASAKHLISI v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA

  Specifically, in respect of the first applicant, they contacted the de facto authorities, and turned to the Russian Federation's authorities as well as recurrently to numerous international organisations and bilateral foreign partners, raising the first applicant's situation and seeking related assistance (compare with Ivanţoc and Others, cited above, § 109; Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 22200/10, § 42, 30 May 2017; Mozer, cited above, § 153; Turturica and Casian v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 28648/06 and 18832/07, § 53, 30 August 2016; Ilaşcu and Others, cited above, § 347, last sentence).
• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  LYPOVCHENKO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Rn. 134 In particular, the second applicant complained that the decision of 4 April 2017 of the de facto "MRT Supreme Court" to order the forfeiture of the bail posted by the applicant and its forfeiture to "MRT treasury" had not been lawful under domestic law; he relied on the Court's findings in Turturica and Casian v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (nos. 28648/06 and 18832/07, §§ 45-54, 30 August 2016).
• EGMR, 17.12.2024 - 18102/04

  TAGANOVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  28648/06 and 18832/07, § 28, 30 August 2016).

• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 55698/14

  BABCHIN c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  En ce qui concerne la légalité de l'ingérence, aucun élément dans la présente affaire ne permet à la Cour de conclure que l'ingérence litigieuse avait une base légale (comparer avec Mozer, précité, § 193, Turturica et Casian c. République de Moldova et Russie, nos 28648/06 et 18832/07, § 49, 30 août 2016, Paduret, précité, § 29, et Eriomenco, précité, § 85).
• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 48145/10

  CILEI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  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 (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, no. 55698/14, § 74, 17 September 2019).
• EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 4711/07

  MANOLE AND POSTICA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  28648/06 and 18832/07, § 38, 30 August 2016).
• EGMR, 28.04.2026 - 15381/17

  ZHUNKO v. RUSSIA

  Rn. 14 The general principles concerning the rule set out in the second paragraph of that Article have been summarised in Turturica and Casian v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (nos. 28648/06 and 18832/07, § 48, 30 August 2016).
• EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 36545/06

  OPREA AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  As 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 applicants guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Turturica and Casian v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 28648/06 and 18832/07, § 49, 30 August 2016, and Pădureţ v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 26626/11, § 29, 9 May 2017).
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 28432/06

  GRAMA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA and 1 other application

  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 applicants guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Turturica and Casian v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 28648/06 and 18832/07, § 49, 30 August 2016; and Pădureţ v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 26626/11, § 29, 9 May 2017).
• EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 5659/07

  COTOFAN 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 Turturica and Casian v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 28648/06 and 18832/07, § 49, 30 August 2016; and Paduret v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 26626/11, § 29, 9 May 2017).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 33842/10

  DENISENKO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 3445/13

  NEGRUTA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA