Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ACAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 26878/07

  According to the Court's settled case-law, discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in similar situations (see D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  FONTES MOREIRA FERREIRA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 26878/07

  Furthermore, the Court should not act as a fourth-instance body and will therefore not question under Article 6 § 1 the national courts' assessment, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (for a recapitulation of the relevant principles see, as a recent example, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 83 and 84, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 26878/07

  With regard to the proportionality of the measure to the intended aim, the Court notes that a fair balance must be struck between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the individual's fundamental rights (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 69, Series A no. 52).

• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 26878/07

  v. Portugal ([GC], no. 73049/01, § 83, ECHR 2007-I), and, in more detail, in Zagrebačka banka d.d. v. Croatia (no. 39544/05, §§ 250-51, 12 December 2013).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03

  MELNITCHOUK c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 26878/07

  The fact that the domestic authorities provided a forum for the determination of an insolvency dispute between private parties does not automatically give rise to an interference by the State with property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX, and Investylia Public Company Limited v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 24321/05, 17 September 2009).
• EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 44277/98

  STRETCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 26878/07

  It notes that whether it is regarded as an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the applicants' possessions within the meaning of the first sentence of the paragraph of Article 1 or as a deprivation of property within the meaning of the second sentence of that paragraph, the same principles apply and require the measure to be justified in accordance with the requirements of that Article as interpreted by the established case-law of the Court (see, for example, Stretch v. the United Kingdom, no. 44277/98, § 36, 24 June 2003, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 24321/05

  INVESTYLIA PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 26878/07

  The fact that the domestic authorities provided a forum for the determination of an insolvency dispute between private parties does not automatically give rise to an interference by the State with property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX, and Investylia Public Company Limited v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 24321/05, 17 September 2009).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

  XERO FLOR w POLSCE sp. z o. o. - Unabhängigkeit der polnischen Gerichte

  I note in this context that in some similar cases the Court declared manifestly ill-founded the applications complaining of lack of sufficient reasoning in respect of the refusal to refer a constitutional issue to a constitutional court for a preliminary ruling (see Sheidl v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 3460/03, 25 March 2008; Lisichenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 5598/03, 23 August 2011; Kislyak v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 44977/09, 11 December 2012; Acar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 26878/07 and 32446/07, 12 December 2017; see also the non-violation judgment in the case of Kristiana Ltd. v. Lithuania, no. 36184/13, 6 February 2018).
• EGMR, 16.12.2025 - 34701/21

  Gondert ./. Deutschland - Begründungspflicht bei Nichtvorlage an den EuGH

  z o.o. v. Poland, no. 4907/18, § 166, 7 May 2021; and Acar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 26878/07, § 43, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 02.12.2025 - 21853/23

  DE SIMONE v. GERMANY

  z o.o. v. Poland, no. 4907/18, § 166, 7 May 2021; and Acar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 26878/07, § 43, 12 December 2017).

• EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 43932/19

  KATONA v. SLOVAKIA

  Moreover, international law may impose such a prioritisation (see, for instance, Acar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), 26878/07, 12 December 2017, and Doğan v. Turkey (dec.), 32446/07, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 03.11.2020 - 847/17

  ZIGON AND KEBER v. SLOVENIA

  26878/07 and 32446/07, § 33, 12 December 2017), the Court finds that the decision to open bankruptcy proceedings against the E.S. company did not impose an individual and excessive burden on the applicants.
• EGMR, 10.10.2024 - 11706/13

  BRYSKA v. UKRAINE

  26878/07 and 32446/07, 12 December 2017, with further references).
• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 24192/05

  [ENG]

  26878/07 and 32446/07, § 43, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 30502/05

  [FRE]

  The Court has repeatedly held that "when the debtor is a private actor,... the State is not, as a general rule, directly liable for debts of private actors and its obligations 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 Acar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 26878/07, § 29, 12 December 2017; Dachar v. France (dec.), no. 42338/98, 6 June 2000; and Pelipenko v. Russia, no. 69037/10, § 49, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 17.06.2021 - 4306/09

  TAHIROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Accordingly, the Court's task in such cases is to assess whether the domestic courts' decisions were in accordance with domestic law and, if so, whether they were arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Malayevy v. Russia [Committee], no. 35635/14, § 28, 18 July 2017, and Acar and others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 26878/07 and 32446/07, § 31, 12 December 2017).