Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PADURET v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PADURET v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 26626/11

  Reports by intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, the relevant domestic law and practice of the Republic of Moldova, and other pertinent documents were summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 61-77, ECHR 2016).

  My vote in the present case was based on my previous dissenting opinion in the case of 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.

• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 26626/11

  In these circumstances, the Court finds that there was a clear interference with the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. According to 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, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 26626/11

  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 Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], 43370/04 and 2 others, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 26626/11

  As they did in Mozer (cited above, §§ 92-94), the Russian Government express the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in Ilaşcu and Others (cited above), Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011), and Catan and Others (cited above) was wrong and at variance with public international law.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.12.2024 - 18102/04

  TAGANOVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  As regards the lawfulness of the interference with the applicant's possession, it is not necessary to address the question of whether any such "laws and regulations" can be given legal validity within the meaning of the Convention (contrast Loizidou, cited above, § 44), since there is nothing in the present case to suggest that there was a legal basis for the interference with the applicant's rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, particularly in the absence of specific relevant information (compare Paduret v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 26626/11, § 29, 9 May 2017, and Sandu and Others, cited above, § 82).
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 55698/14

  BABCHIN c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  La mesure doit en outre être proportionnée au but poursuivi ; toutefois, la nécessité d'examiner la proportionnalité d'une ingérence ne peut se faire sentir que lorsque la légalité de celle-ci a été établie (Katsaros, précité, § 43, Paduret c. République de Moldova et Russie, no 26626/11, § 28, 9 mai 2017, et Eriomenco, précité, § 84).
• 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, 17.09.2019 - 3445/13

  NEGRUTA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  La mesure doit en outre être proportionnée au but poursuivi ; toutefois, la nécessité d'examiner la proportionnalité d'une ingérence ne peut se faire sentir que lorsque la légalité de celle-ci a été établie (Katsaros, précité, § 43, Paduret c. République de Moldova et Russie, no 26626/11, § 28, 9 mai 2017, et Eriomenco, précité, § 84).