Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BOYAJYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6 Remainder inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2011 - 38003/04

  Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 59, Series A no. 316-B; Khalfaoui v. France, no. 34791/97, § 35, ECHR 1999-IX, and Papon v. France, no. 54210/00, § 90, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2011 - 38003/04

  Furthermore, under Article 35 the existence of remedies which are available and sufficient must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, among other authorities, De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 39, Series A no. 77, and Vernillo v. France, 20 February 1991, § 27, Series A no. 198).
• EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 44574/98

  Kovacic u. a. ./. Slowenien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2011 - 38003/04

  In the Kovacic v. Slovenia case, which concerned the break-up of the SFRY, its banking system and the redistribution of liability for old foreign-currency savings among the successor States of the SFRY, the Grand Chamber agreed with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe that "the matter of compensation for so many thousands of individuals must be solved by agreement between successor States" (Kovacic and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, [GC], judgment of 3 October 2008, § 256).

• EGMR, 06.05.2004 - 33408/03

  DENISOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2011 - 38003/04

  As regards the Government's claim that the applicant should have tried to reopen her case following the adoption of Government Decree no. 352-N which introduced compensation procedures, the Court, first of all, points out its extensive case-law to the effect that an application for retrial or similar extraordinary remedies cannot, as a general rule, be taken into account for the purposes of applying Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, R. v. Denmark, no. 10326/83, Commission decision of 6 September 1983, Decisions and Reports 35, p. 218; Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002; and Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004).
• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02

  PRYSTAVSKA contre l'UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2011 - 38003/04

  As regards the Government's claim that the applicant should have tried to reopen her case following the adoption of Government Decree no. 352-N which introduced compensation procedures, the Court, first of all, points out its extensive case-law to the effect that an application for retrial or similar extraordinary remedies cannot, as a general rule, be taken into account for the purposes of applying Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, R. v. Denmark, no. 10326/83, Commission decision of 6 September 1983, Decisions and Reports 35, p. 218; Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002; and Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 45526/99

  GAYDUK ET AUTRES c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2011 - 38003/04

  45526/99, 46099/99, 47088/99, 47176/99, 47177/99, 48018/99, 48043/99, 48071/99, 48580/99, 48624/99, 49426/99, 50354/99, 51934/99, 51938/99, 53423/99, 53424/99, 54120/00, 54124/00, 54136/00, 55542/00 and 56019/00, ECHR 2002-VI (extracts)).
• EKMR, 06.10.1983 - 10326/83

  R. v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2011 - 38003/04

  As regards the Government's claim that the applicant should have tried to reopen her case following the adoption of Government Decree no. 352-N which introduced compensation procedures, the Court, first of all, points out its extensive case-law to the effect that an application for retrial or similar extraordinary remedies cannot, as a general rule, be taken into account for the purposes of applying Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, R. v. Denmark, no. 10326/83, Commission decision of 6 September 1983, Decisions and Reports 35, p. 218; Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002; and Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004).
• EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 38985/97

  JASINSKIJ ET AUTRES c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2011 - 38003/04

  The Court reiterates at the outset that securities having an economic value can be regarded as "possessions" (see Jasinskij and Others v. Lithuania, no. 38985/97, Commission decision of 9 September 1998).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 28727/11

  [ENG]

  Applications for reopening of proceedings or similar extraordinary remedies cannot, as a general rule, be taken into account for the purposes of applying Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, R. v. Denmark, no. 10326/83, Commission decision of 6 September 1983, Decisions and Reports 35, p. 218; Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002; Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004; Martynets v. Russia (dec.), no. 29612/09, ECHR 2009; and Boyajyan v. Armenia, no. 38003/04, § 38, 22 March 2011).
• EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 17126/02

  LIKVIDEJAMA P/S SELGA AND VASILEVSKA v. LATVIA

  Turning to the second point in its analysis, the Court considers at the outset that the sums of money deposited by the applicants with the Vneshekonombank constitute "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention (see Boyajyan v. Armenia, no. 38003/04, § 54, 22 March 2011).
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 2489/09

  [FRE]

  A cet égard, la Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence bien établie selon laquelle l'on ne saurait déduire de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 une obligation générale pour les Etats de maintenir, par une indexation systématique, le pouvoir d'achat des sommes déposées auprès de banques ou d'organismes financiers (Rudzinska c. Pologne (déc.), no 45223/99, CEDH 1999-VI ; Gayduk et autres c. Ukraine (déc.), nos 45526/99, 46099/99, 47088/99, 47176/99, 47177/99, 48018/99, 48043/99, 48071/99, 48580/99, 48624/99, 49426/99, 50354/99, 51934/99, 51938/99, 53423/99, 53424/99, 54120/00, 54124/00, 54136/00, 55542/00 et 56019/00, CEDH 2002-VI (extraits) ; Boyajyan c. Arménie, no 38003/04, § 55, 22 mars 2011).
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 9737/06

  [ENG]

  Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 59, Series A no. 316-B; Papon v. France, no. 54210/00, § 90, ECHR 2002-VII; and Boyajyan v. Armenia, no. 38003/04, § 42, 22 March 2011).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 25678/09

  LANCHAVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  However, since no such rules have been adopted in Georgia to date, with the relevant ministerial Commission currently working on the issue, the applicants cannot legitimately argue, solely on the basis of the generally worded provisions of section 48 § 1 (g) of the Act on State Debt, that any specific amounts of money denominated in the current national or foreign currencies may qualify as their "existing possessions" (see, among many other authorities, Boyajyan v. Armenia, no. 38003/04, § 55, 22 March 2011; Rudzinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 45223/99, ECHR 1999-VI; and Gayduk and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), nos.