Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CIOCODEICA v. ROMANIA

  No violation of Article 13+P1-1-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CIOCODEICA v. ROMANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (33)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 36446/04

  FLAVIU AND DALIA SERBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 27413/09

  They considered such an approach to be not only reasonable, but also salutary, particularly since the adoption by the Court of the judgment in the case of Flaviu and Dalia Şerban v. Romania (no. 36446/04, 14 September 2010).

  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, 09.10.2014 - 39483/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 27413/09

  With this in mind, the Court considers it appropriate in the circumstances of the present case to commence its examination of the issues related to the alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, § 155, 9 October 2014).
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 25329/03

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 27413/09

  In one case, the Court similarly found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention, on account of the national authorities' failure to take effective and necessary measures to assist the applicants, who were journalists, to enforce their final and enforceable decision against a private party (see Frăsilă and Ciocîrlan v. Romania, no. 25329/03, § 71, 10 May 2012).

• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 17369/02

  TOPCIOV c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 27413/09

  However, in other cases dealing with enforcement proceedings in which the debtor was a private party, the Court found either that the State's obligations prescribed by Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been complied with, or that the applicants themselves had not manifested sufficient diligence in pursuing their complaints (see Fociac, cited above; Topciov v. Romania (dec.), no. 17369/02, 15 June 2006; SC Magna Holding SRL v. Romania, no. 10055/03, 13 July 2006; Cubanit v. Romania (dec.), no. 31510/02, 4 January 2007; Cerăceanu v. Romania (no. 1), no. 31250/02, 4 March 2008; Mircea Popescu v. Romania, (dec.), no. 35017/02, 4 November 2008; Rădvan v. Romania (dec.), no. 26846/04, 2 June 2009; Butan v. Romania, (dec.), no. 18522/05, 29 September 2009; Poenaru v. Romania (dec.), no. 31752/04, 15 December 2009; Maghiran v. Romania, (dec.), no. 29402/07, 19 January 2010; Voda v. Romania, (dec.), no. 35812/02, 19 January 2010; and Ciobanu and Others v. Romania, (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 10055/03

  SC MAGNA HOLDING SRL c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 27413/09

  However, in other cases dealing with enforcement proceedings in which the debtor was a private party, the Court found either that the State's obligations prescribed by Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been complied with, or that the applicants themselves had not manifested sufficient diligence in pursuing their complaints (see Fociac, cited above; Topciov v. Romania (dec.), no. 17369/02, 15 June 2006; SC Magna Holding SRL v. Romania, no. 10055/03, 13 July 2006; Cubanit v. Romania (dec.), no. 31510/02, 4 January 2007; Cerăceanu v. Romania (no. 1), no. 31250/02, 4 March 2008; Mircea Popescu v. Romania, (dec.), no. 35017/02, 4 November 2008; Rădvan v. Romania (dec.), no. 26846/04, 2 June 2009; Butan v. Romania, (dec.), no. 18522/05, 29 September 2009; Poenaru v. Romania (dec.), no. 31752/04, 15 December 2009; Maghiran v. Romania, (dec.), no. 29402/07, 19 January 2010; Voda v. Romania, (dec.), no. 35812/02, 19 January 2010; and Ciobanu and Others v. Romania, (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 24724/03

  CONSTANTIN OPREA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 27413/09

  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, 20.12.2007 - 10395/02

  KOCSIS c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 27413/09

  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, 06.07.2010 - 31760/06

  S.C. PRODCOMEXIM S.R.L. v. ROMANIA (no. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 27413/09

  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, 01.07.2008 - 25111/02

  ELENA NEGULESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 27413/09

  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, 15.03.2007 - 22626/02

  SCHREPLER c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 27413/09

  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, 19.11.2013 - 26270/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 6580/03

  CIOCAN ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 23.06.2005 - 7893/02

  GHIBUSI c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 04.01.2007 - 31510/02

  CUBANIT c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 06.09.2011 - 898/06

  CIOBANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 40274/04

  CHELU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 44476/04

  PAPUC c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 31250/02

  CERACEANU c. ROUMANIE (N° 1)
• EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 40162/02

  VASILE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 35812/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.07.2010 - 6332/04

  ION POPESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 67007/01

  NEAMTIU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 26846/04

  RADVAN c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 18522/05

  T.N.B. c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 31752/04

  POENARU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 35017/02

  MIRCEA POPESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 40067/06

  T.N.B. ET C.D. c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 29402/07

  MAGHIRAN c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 73706/01

  ION-CETINA ET ION c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 07.06.2005 - 71186/01

  FUKLEV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 50342/99

  SANGLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 2577/02

  FOCIAC c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 2699/03

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.04.2018 - C-600/16

  National Iranian Tanker Company/ Rat - Rechtsmittel - Gemeinsame Außen- und …

  {FN:135} Urteil des EGMR vom 26. Oktober 2000, Kudła/Polen (CE:ECHR:2000:1026JUD003021096, §§ 157 und 158); vgl. z. B. auch Urteil vom 16. Januar 2018, Ciocodeică/Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2018:0116JUD002741309, § 88 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).
• EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 43422/07

  [FRE]

  In this latter context, the Court has consistently held that State responsibility for the enforcement of a judgment against a private company extends no further than the involvement of State bodies in the enforcement procedures (Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 71186/01, § 67 and §§ 90-11, 7 June 2005 and Ciocodeică v. Romania, no. 27413/09, § 85, 16 January 2018).
• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 41747/10

  ISGiN v. TURKEY

  Deuxièmement, le fait que l'avocat n'ait pas revendiqué la responsabilité de l'État en raison d'un « acte fautif'imputable au bureau (article 129 de la Constitution et articles 5 et 16 de la loi no 2004), ne joue en rien sur le caractère défendable de ses allégations, d'autant que le Gouvernement n'a soumis aucun exemple de précédent permettant de conclure que cette voie de réparation, fondée sur la responsabilité objective de l'administration du fait de ses fonctionnaires, aurait permis au requérant d'obtenir un redressement approprié, à savoir l'exécution effective du jugement le concernant (İnan c. Turquie, no 46154/10, § 14, 6 avril 2021, et, mutatis mutandis, Ciocodeică c. Roumanie, no 27413/09, §§ 94 et 95, 16 janvier 2018).

• EGMR, 29.11.2018 - 10815/17

  PALEACU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  The Court further observes that the problem of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of court judgments in Romania has been addressed on numerous occasions in its judgments (see, among many other authorities, Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu v. Romania, nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07, 7 January 2014, and Ciocodeică v. Romania, no. 27413/09, 16 January 2018).
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 14323/13

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

  La responsabilité de l'État se limite à l'implication de ses autorités dans les procédures d'exécution (voir Ciocodeică c. Roumanie, no 27413/09, §§ 84-85, 16 janvier 2018).
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 19052/11

  STANCIU c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour relève en outre que la législation nationale en matière de frais de justice, qui prévoit l'octroi de l'aide judiciaire sous forme d'exemptions, de réductions, d'échelonnements ou d'ajournements de paiement des frais de justice pour les personnes n'ayant pas assez de ressources, apparaît comme suffisamment accessible aux personnes qui sollicitent des dédommagements contre des différents acteurs (voir, par exemple, les actions en responsabilité civile délictuelle contre les autorités concernant la durée excessive des procédures dans l'affaire Brudan c. Roumanie, no 75717/14, § 79, 10 avril 2018, ou bien concernant les procédures d'exécution entamées par les créditeurs contre leurs débiteurs dans l'affaire Ciocodeică c. Roumanie, no 27413/09, § 100, 16 janvier 2018).