Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANOKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 07.06.2005 - 71186/01

  FUKLEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 25867/02

  Thus, when the authorities are obliged to act in order to enforce a judgment and they fail to do so, their inactivity may, in certain circumstances, engage the State's responsibility on the ground of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Scollo v. Italy, judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 315-C, § 44, and Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 71186/01, § 84, 7 June 2005).
• EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 36496/02

  KESYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 25867/02

  When the debtor is a private actor, the position is different since the State is not, as a general rule, directly liable for debts of private actors and its obligations under these Convention provisions are limited to providing the necessary assistance to the creditor in the enforcement of the respective court awards, for example, through a bailiff service or bankruptcy procedures (see, for example, Shestakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 48757/99, 18 June 2002; Krivonogova v. Russia (dec.), no. 74694/01, 1 April 2004; and Kesyan v. Russia, no. 36496/02, 19 October 2006).
• EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 2577/02

  FOCIAC c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 25867/02

  The Court's task in such cases is to examine whether measures applied by the authorities were adequate and sufficient and whether they acted diligently in order to assist a creditor in execution of a judgment (see Fociac v. Romania, no. 2577/02, § 70, 3 February 2005, and Fuklev, cited above, § 84).
• EGMR, 01.04.2004 - 74694/01

  KRIVONOGOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 25867/02

  When the debtor is a private actor, the position is different since the State is not, as a general rule, directly liable for debts of private actors and its obligations under these Convention provisions are limited to providing the necessary assistance to the creditor in the enforcement of the respective court awards, for example, through a bailiff service or bankruptcy procedures (see, for example, Shestakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 48757/99, 18 June 2002; Krivonogova v. Russia (dec.), no. 74694/01, 1 April 2004; and Kesyan v. Russia, no. 36496/02, 19 October 2006).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 48757/99

  SHESTAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 25867/02

  When the debtor is a private actor, the position is different since the State is not, as a general rule, directly liable for debts of private actors and its obligations under these Convention provisions are limited to providing the necessary assistance to the creditor in the enforcement of the respective court awards, for example, through a bailiff service or bankruptcy procedures (see, for example, Shestakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 48757/99, 18 June 2002; Krivonogova v. Russia (dec.), no. 74694/01, 1 April 2004; and Kesyan v. Russia, no. 36496/02, 19 October 2006).

• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 54522/00

  KOTOV v. RUSSIA

  Ainsi, la Cour a souligné à de nombreuses reprises que l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 ne peut être interprété comme faisant peser sur les Etats contractants une obligation générale d'assumer les dettes d'entités privées (voir, mutatis mutandis, la décision Shestakov précitée et l'arrêt Scollo précité, § 44 ; voir en particulier le raisonnement de la Cour dans la décision Anokhin c. Russie (déc.), no 25867/02, 31 mai 2007).
• EGMR, 04.02.2014 - 25376/06

  CENI c. ITALIE

  Ainsi, la Cour a souligné à de nombreuses reprises que l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 ne peut être interprété comme faisant peser sur les États contractants une obligation générale d'assumer les dettes d'entités privées (voir, mutatis mutandis, la décision Shestakov précitée [Shestakov c. Russie (déc.), no 48757/99, 18 juin 2002] et l'arrêt Scollo précité [Scollo c. Italie, 28 septembre 1995, série A no 315-C], § 44 ; voir en particulier le raisonnement de la Cour dans la décision Anokhin c. Russie (déc.), no 25867/02, 31 mai 2007).
• EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 39483/05

  LISEYTSEVA AND MASLOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates at the outset that, where an applicant complains of inability to enforce a court award in his or her favour, the extent of the State's obligations under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 varies depending on the debtor in the specific case (see Anokhin v. Russia (dec.), no. 25867/02, 31 May 2007).

 
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 42140/05

  FOMENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that, where an applicant complains of the inability to enforce a court order in his or her favour, the extent of the State's obligations under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 varies depending on the debtor in the specific case (see Anokhin v. Russia (dec.), no. 25867/02, 31 May 2007).
• EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 65829/12

  TCHOKONTIO HAPPI c. FRANCE

  Dans un tel cas, différent de celui soumis à la Cour par la requérante, l'État ne peut être tenu pour responsable que s'il est établi que les mesures adoptées par les autorités nationales n'ont pas été adéquates et suffisantes (voir à ce sujet Shestakov c. Russie (déc.), no 48757/99, 18 juin 2002, Ruianu, précité, § 66, Kesyan c. Russie, no 36496/02, 19 octobre 2006, Anokhin c. Russie (déc.), no 25867/02, 31 mai 2007).
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 14323/13

  POMUL S.R.L. ET SUBERVIN S.R.L. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  La Cour rappelle que lorsqu'un requérant se plaint de l'impossibilité d'exécuter une décision de justice rendue en sa faveur, l'étendue des obligations de l'État au titre des articles 6 de la Convention et 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention varie selon que le débiteur soit ou non un État (Mikhaïlenki et autres c. Ukraine, nos 35091/02 et 9 autres, § 43, CEDH 2004-XII, et Anokhin c. Russie (dec.), no 25867/02, 31 mai 2007).
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 24324/05

  SMAGILOV v. RUSSIA

  In contrast to a weighty obligation of a High Contracting Party to comply expediently with the judgments against it, within the domain of enforcement of a final and binding judicial decision against a private party a State's obligations are limited to providing a creditor with the necessary legal assistance and ensuring the effective operation of the procedure (see Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 71186/01, § 84, 7 June 2005; Anokhin v. Russia (dec.), no. 25867/02, 31 May 2007; and Kunashko, cited above, § 38).
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 1387/04

  YERSHOVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates at the outset that, where an applicant complains of an inability to enforce a court award in his or her favour, the extent of the State's obligations under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 varies depending on whether the debtor is the High Contracting Party within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention or a private individual (see Anokhin v. Russia (dec.), no. 25867/02, 31 May 2007).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 38649/08

  ERDEM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  It also considers that in the present case there were no additional factors requiring the State to bear any civil liability for Imarbank's lack of resources (see Ali?.ic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, § 115, ECHR 2014; see also Anokhin v. Russia (dec.), no. 25867/02, 31 May 2007, for the factors to be taken into consideration in order to establish such liability).
• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 59434/10

  SENDAN v. TURKEY

  It also considers that in the present case there were no additional factors requiring the State to bear any civil liability for Imarbank's lack of resources (see Ali?.ic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, § 115, ECHR 2014; see also Anokhin v. Russia (dec.), no. 25867/02, 31 May 2007 for the factors to be taken into consideration in order to establish such liability).
• EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 23211/04

  SHIKUNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 46686/06

  ANTOSHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 48028/07

  ZHDANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 33461/09

  BERENT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 64098/09

  KUZHELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 31979/04

  SOROKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 9550/03

  SIROTENKO ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 8910/04

  LYUDMILA SMIRNOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 9157/04

  SMIRNOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 15948/04

  KUZNETSOV AND GORBACHEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 43121/05

  STUPIN ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE