Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BOGDAN VODA GREEK-CATHOLIC PARISH v. ROMANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Bogdan Voda Greek-Catholic Parish v. Romania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 50342/99

  SANGLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 26270/04

  However, a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002-III) and the right of "access to court" does not impose an obligation on a State to execute every judgment of a civil character without having regard to the particular circumstances of the case (see Sanglier v. France, no. 50342/99, § 39, 27 May 2003).
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 04.04.2003 - 19/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 26270/04

  19/02/2014.
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 33158/96

  LAINO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 26270/04

  Having regard to the findings in paragraphs 45-50 above, the Court concludes that these complaints must be declared admissible, but that it is not necessary to examine them on the merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Laino v. Italy [GC], no. 33158/96, § 25, ECHR 1999-I; Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, 16 December 1997, § 50, Reports 1997-VIII; and Ruianu, cited above, § 75).

• EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 2577/02

  FOCIAC c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 26270/04

  In cases such as the present one, which necessitate actions by a debtor who is a private person, the State, as the possessor of public authority, has to act diligently in order to assist a creditor with the execution of a judgment (see Fociac v. Romania, no. 2577/02, § 70, 3 February 2005).
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 37763/04

  CEBOTARI AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 26270/04

  When the authorities are obliged to act in order to enforce a judgment and they fail to do so, their inaction can engage the State's responsibility under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Cebotari and Others v. Moldova, nos. 37763/04, 37712/04, 35247/04, 35178/04 and 34350/04, § 39, 27 January 2009).
• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 24724/03

  CONSTANTIN OPREA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 26270/04

  The Court therefore finds no reason to depart from its conclusion in similar cases that, to date, the Government have not demonstrated that the objection to execution would be an effective remedy (see Elena Negulescu v. Romania, no. 25111/02, § 43, 1 July 2008; Constantin Oprea v. Romania, no. 24724/03, § 41, 8 November 2007; and Flaviu and Dalia Serban, cited above, § 60).
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 25111/02

  ELENA NEGULESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 26270/04

  The Court therefore finds no reason to depart from its conclusion in similar cases that, to date, the Government have not demonstrated that the objection to execution would be an effective remedy (see Elena Negulescu v. Romania, no. 25111/02, § 43, 1 July 2008; Constantin Oprea v. Romania, no. 24724/03, § 41, 8 November 2007; and Flaviu and Dalia Serban, cited above, § 60).
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 36446/04

  FLAVIU AND DALIA SERBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 26270/04

  It therefore considers it appropriate to join this objection to the merits (see Flaviu and Dalia Serban v. Romania, no. 36446/04, § 48, 14 September 2010).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.11.2017 - 34647/97

  RUIANU AGAINST ROMANIA AND 17 OTHER CASES

  26270/04.
• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 27413/09

  CIOCODEICA v. ROMANIA

  In a narrow majority of such cases, the Court found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, holding that the State authorities (mainly the bailiff service) had failed to act diligently and in due time in order to assist the applicants in having their judgments enforced; in most cases, the Court held that there was no need to examine on the merits the additional complaint raised under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Ruianu, cited above; Ghibusi v. Romania, no. 7893/02, 23 June 2005; Kocsis v. Romania, no. 10395/02, 20 December 2007; Schrepler v. Romania, no. 22626/02, 15 March 2007; Constantin Oprea v. Romania, no. 24724/03, 8 November 2007; Butan and Dragomir v. Romania, no. 40067/06, 14 February 2008; Ion-Cetină and Ion v. Romania, no. 73706/01, 14 February 2008; Neamtiu v. Romania, no. 67007/01, 14 February 2008; Vasile v. Romania, no. 40162/02, 29 April 2008; Elena Negulescu v. Romania, no. 25111/02, 1 July 2008; Ciocan and Others v. Romania, no. 6580/03, 9 December 2008; Chelu v. Romania, no. 40274/04, 12 January 2010; I.D. v. Romania, no. 3271/04, 23 March 2010; Papuc v. Romania no. 44476/04, 27 May 2010; S.C. Prodcomexim SRL v. Romania (no. 2), no. 31760/06, 6 July 2010; Ion Popescu v. Romania, no. 6332/04, 27 July 2010; Flaviu and Dalia Serban v. Romania, no. 36446/04, 14 September 2010; and Bogdan Vodă Greek-Catholic Parish v. Romania, no. 26270/04, 19 November 2013).
• EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 17739/09

  BOZZA c. ITALIE

  La responsabilité des États concernant l'exécution d'un jugement par une personne de droit privé peut dès lors se trouver engagée si les autorités publiques impliquées dans les procédures d'exécution manquent de la diligence requise ou encore empêchent l'exécution (Bogdan Vodă Greek-Catholic Parish c. Roumanie, no 26270/04, § 44, 19 novembre 2013, et Sekul c. Croatie (déc.), no 43569/13, §§ 54-55, 30 juin 2015).

• EGMR, 26.09.2017 - 18132/10

  BOSCO c. ITALIE

  Si la responsabilité de l'État ne se trouve pas engagée du fait du défaut de paiement d'une créance exécutoire dû à l'insolvabilité d'un débiteur « privé'(voir, mutatis mutandis, Sanglier c. France, no 50342/99, § 39, 27 mai 2003, Ciprova c. République tchèque (déc.), no 33273/03, 22 mars 2005, et Cubănit c. Roumanie (déc.), no 31510/02, 4 janvier 2007), elle peut l'être lorsque les autorités publiques impliquées dans les procédures d'exécution manquent de la diligence requise ou encore empêchent l'exécution (Bogdan Vodă Greek-Catholic Parish c. Roumanie, no 26270/04, § 44, 19 novembre 2013, et Sekul c. Croatie (déc.), no 43569/13, §§ 54-55, 30 juin 2015).
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 43569/13

  SEKUL v. CROATIA

  When the authorities are obliged to act in order to enforce a judgment and they fail to do so, their inaction can engage the State's responsibility under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Bogdan Voda Greek-Catholic Parish v. Romania, no. 26270/04, § 44, 19 November 2013).
• EGMR - 25579/23 (anhängig)

  KOVACEVIC v. CROATIA

  Were the domestic courts' decisions to limit the duration of the company's obligation to pay the court penalties contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto (see Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, 17 June 2003; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009; and Bogdan Vodă Greek-Catholic Parish v. Romania, no. 26270/04, 19 November 2013)?.
• EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 35839/07

  GREEK CATHOLIC PARISH PESCEANA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Excerpts from the relevant domestic law concerning the enforcement of final judgments are given in Bogdan Voda Greek-Catholic Parish v. Romania, no. 26270/04, §§ 31-32, 19 November 2013.