Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LOZAN AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Preliminary objection dismissed (six-month period) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 20567/02

  Insofar as the applicants had been employees of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova (a State scientific institution), it is to be noted that the Government did not submit any observations on the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to the present case in the light of the Pellegrin v. France case-law ([GC], no. 28541/95, § 66, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 20567/02

  The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 73562/01

  SIRBU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 20567/02

  73562/01, 73565/01, 73712/01, 73744/01, 73972/01 and 73973/01, § 12, 15 June 2004.
• EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 20940/03

  DUMBRAVEANU v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 20567/02

  In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants can continue to claim to be "victims" of a violation of their Convention rights by the non-enforcement of final judgments in their favour (Dumbraveanu v. Moldova, no. 20940/03, § 22, 24 May 2005).
• EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 20864/03

  SCUTARI v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 20567/02

  The Court must therefore continue the examination of the case (see Scutari v. Moldova, no. 20864/03, §§ 17-20, 26 July 2005).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 2916/02

  LUNTRE CONTRE MOLDOVA ET 52 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  20567/02.
• EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 50905/08

  CHIRICA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Partant, la Cour estime qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (Lozan et autres c. Moldova, no 20567/02, § 39, 10 octobre 2006, Avram c. Moldova, no 2886/05, §§ 28-31, 9 décembre 2008).
• EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 34322/02

  CURARARU v. MOLDOVA

  The Court has already found, in cases similar to the present one where apartments owned by the State are given to persons on the basis of "social tenancy agreements", that "a 'claim' - even concerning a particular social benefit - can constitute a 'possession' within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable" (see Shpakovskiy v. Russia, no. 41307/02, § 33, 7 July 2005; Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, §§ 43 and 44, ECHR 2005-... (extracts) and Lozan and Others v. Moldova, no. 20567/02, § 39, 10 October 2006).
• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 3479/04

  RUSU v. MOLDOVA

  A similar situation in which the State authorities had to issue an applicant with a document so that the latter obtained the full enjoyment of his or her possessions has already been found by the Court in Lozan and Others v. Moldova (no. 20567/02, §§ 16, 24 and 38, 10 October 2006) to be in breach of the provisions of the Convention.