Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BURDIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BURDIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

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

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (17)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 26290/12

  That being said, obviously the Court does not rule out that, just because the respondent State has undertaken general measures to remedy the violation found by the Court in the Klaus and Yuri Kiladze case, the domestic proceedings in the case at hand may have raised new issues under the Convention (see, amongst others, Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 62, ECHR 2009, and Egmez, cited above, § 51).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 26290/12

  However, even assuming that the Court has jurisdiction in the present case to verify whether or not the respondent State has complied with its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention (compare with Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 35, ECHR 2015; Egmez v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 12214/07, § 50, 18 September 2012; Kudeshkina v. Russia (no. 2) (dec.), no. 28727/11, §§ 74-81, 17 February 2015; Rózsa v. Hungary (dec.), no. 53815/11, § 15, 7 April 2015; Harabin v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 33800/14, § 31, 2 June 2015; Meltex Ltd v. Armenia (dec.), no. 45199/09, §§ 37-41, 21 May 2013; Costică Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, §§ 125-127, 15 February 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Krčmář and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 69190/01, 30 March 2004, and Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15227/03, ECHR 2003-IX), the Court cannot enter into a discussion of whether or not the legislative Amendments of 19 April 2011 have sufficiently remedied the situation exposed in its judgment of 2 February 2010 in the case of Klaus and Yuri Kiladze.
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 5056/10

  Emre ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 26290/12

  Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that the present application cannot be a follow-up to the situation examined in the Klaus and Yuri Kiladze case, nor may it relate to the specific context of a continuing violation of a Convention right (see paragraph 32 above and compare and contrast with, for example, Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, §§ 65-68, 26 July 2011, Emre v. Switzerland (no. 2), no. 5056/10, §§ 38-44, 11 October 2011; Rongoni v. Italy, no. 44531/98, §§ 13-16, 25 October 2001, and Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia, no. 23687/05, §§ 93-96, 15 November 2011).

• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 5980/07

  ÖCALAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 26290/12

  However, even assuming that the Court has jurisdiction in the present case to verify whether or not the respondent State has complied with its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention (compare with Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 35, ECHR 2015; Egmez v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 12214/07, § 50, 18 September 2012; Kudeshkina v. Russia (no. 2) (dec.), no. 28727/11, §§ 74-81, 17 February 2015; Rózsa v. Hungary (dec.), no. 53815/11, § 15, 7 April 2015; Harabin v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 33800/14, § 31, 2 June 2015; Meltex Ltd v. Armenia (dec.), no. 45199/09, §§ 37-41, 21 May 2013; Costică Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, §§ 125-127, 15 February 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Krčmář and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 69190/01, 30 March 2004, and Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15227/03, ECHR 2003-IX), the Court cannot enter into a discussion of whether or not the legislative Amendments of 19 April 2011 have sufficiently remedied the situation exposed in its judgment of 2 February 2010 in the case of Klaus and Yuri Kiladze.
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 26290/12

  Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that the present application cannot be a follow-up to the situation examined in the Klaus and Yuri Kiladze case, nor may it relate to the specific context of a continuing violation of a Convention right (see paragraph 32 above and compare and contrast with, for example, Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, §§ 65-68, 26 July 2011, Emre v. Switzerland (no. 2), no. 5056/10, §§ 38-44, 11 October 2011; Rongoni v. Italy, no. 44531/98, §§ 13-16, 25 October 2001, and Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia, no. 23687/05, §§ 93-96, 15 November 2011).
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 26290/12

  Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that the present application cannot be a follow-up to the situation examined in the Klaus and Yuri Kiladze case, nor may it relate to the specific context of a continuing violation of a Convention right (see paragraph 32 above and compare and contrast with, for example, Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, §§ 65-68, 26 July 2011, Emre v. Switzerland (no. 2), no. 5056/10, §§ 38-44, 11 October 2011; Rongoni v. Italy, no. 44531/98, §§ 13-16, 25 October 2001, and Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia, no. 23687/05, §§ 93-96, 15 November 2011).
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69582/01

  SARDINE c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 26290/12

  It cannot therefore be construed as a guarantee that the desired outcome will be obtained in civil litigation (see, mutatis mutandis, Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II (extracts), and Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no. 69582/01, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 12214/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 26290/12

  However, even assuming that the Court has jurisdiction in the present case to verify whether or not the respondent State has complied with its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention (compare with Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 35, ECHR 2015; Egmez v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 12214/07, § 50, 18 September 2012; Kudeshkina v. Russia (no. 2) (dec.), no. 28727/11, §§ 74-81, 17 February 2015; Rózsa v. Hungary (dec.), no. 53815/11, § 15, 7 April 2015; Harabin v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 33800/14, § 31, 2 June 2015; Meltex Ltd v. Armenia (dec.), no. 45199/09, §§ 37-41, 21 May 2013; Costică Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, §§ 125-127, 15 February 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Krčmář and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 69190/01, 30 March 2004, and Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15227/03, ECHR 2003-IX), the Court cannot enter into a discussion of whether or not the legislative Amendments of 19 April 2011 have sufficiently remedied the situation exposed in its judgment of 2 February 2010 in the case of Klaus and Yuri Kiladze.
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 28727/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 26290/12

  However, even assuming that the Court has jurisdiction in the present case to verify whether or not the respondent State has complied with its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention (compare with Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 35, ECHR 2015; Egmez v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 12214/07, § 50, 18 September 2012; Kudeshkina v. Russia (no. 2) (dec.), no. 28727/11, §§ 74-81, 17 February 2015; Rózsa v. Hungary (dec.), no. 53815/11, § 15, 7 April 2015; Harabin v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 33800/14, § 31, 2 June 2015; Meltex Ltd v. Armenia (dec.), no. 45199/09, §§ 37-41, 21 May 2013; Costică Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, §§ 125-127, 15 February 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Krčmář and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 69190/01, 30 March 2004, and Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15227/03, ECHR 2003-IX), the Court cannot enter into a discussion of whether or not the legislative Amendments of 19 April 2011 have sufficiently remedied the situation exposed in its judgment of 2 February 2010 in the case of Klaus and Yuri Kiladze.
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 38736/04

  FC MRETEBI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 26290/12

  A complaint formulated in such a way under Article 6 § 1 is unmistakeably of a "fourth instance" nature (see, amongst many others, FC Mretebi v. Georgia, no. 38736/04, § 31, 31 July 2007).
• EGMR, 25.10.2001 - 44531/98

  RONGONI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 8229/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 69190/01

  KRCMAR et AUTRES contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 33800/14

  HARABIN v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 45199/09

  MELTEX LTD v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 25678/09

  LANCHAVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 53815/11

  RÓZSA v. HUNGARY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  In the light of the above-mentioned case-law principles, the Court considers that the second to fourth applicants' complaints about the outcome of the ownership dispute do not raise a prima facie issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Indeed, this provision cannot be construed as a guarantee that the desired outcome will be obtained in civil litigation (see, for instance, Burdiashvili and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 26290/12, § 36, 4 April 2017; see, mutatis mutandis, Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II (extracts); and see Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no. 69582/01, ECHR 2004-II).