Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 45199/09 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MELTEX LTD v. ARMENIA
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 32283/04
MELTEX LTD AND MOVSESYAN v. ARMENIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 45199/09
Background to the case: application no. 32283/04 and the Court's judgment of 17 June 2008.On 27 August 2004 the applicant company and its chairman, Mr Mesrop Movsesyan, lodged an application with the Court (application no. 32283/04) against the Republic of Armenia under Article 34 of the Convention.
The application was considered by the Court, which gave judgment on 17 June 2008 (Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia, no. 32283/04, 17 June 2008).
The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concluded its examination of application no. 32283/04 on 8 June 2011 by adopting Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)39, the relevant parts of which read:.
The applicant company complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the Government had failed to enforce the Court's judgment of 17 June 2008 in the case of Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia, (no. 32283/04).
Moreover, the Committee of Ministers ended its supervision of the execution of the Court's previous judgment in application no. 32283/04 after the refusal by the Court of Cassation to reopen the proceedings.
- EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02
Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 45199/09
In particular, relying on the Court's judgment in the case of Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, ECHR 2009, the applicant company claimed that the refusal of the Court of Cassation to reopen its case constituted a fresh violation of its freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. - EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 60041/08
GREENS ET M.T. c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 45199/09
Although the Court can in certain situations indicate the specific remedy or other measure to be taken by the respondent state (see, for instance, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, point 14 of the operative part, ECHR 2004-II) it still falls to the Committee of Ministers to evaluate the implementation of such measures under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention (see Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08, § 107, 23 November 2010; Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, § 61, 3 November 2009).
- EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98
SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 45199/09
39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII). - EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01
ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 45199/09
Although the Court can in certain situations indicate the specific remedy or other measure to be taken by the respondent state (see, for instance, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, point 14 of the operative part, ECHR 2004-II) it still falls to the Committee of Ministers to evaluate the implementation of such measures under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention (see Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08, § 107, 23 November 2010; Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, § 61, 3 November 2009). - EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 8229/04
MOLDOVAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 45199/09
It has therefore refused to examine complaints concerning the failure by States to execute its judgments, declaring such complaints inadmissible ratione materiae (see Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, 15 February 2011; Franz Fischer v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003-VI). - EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 27569/02
FRANZ FISCHER contre l'AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 45199/09
It has therefore refused to examine complaints concerning the failure by States to execute its judgments, declaring such complaints inadmissible ratione materiae (see Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, 15 February 2011; Franz Fischer v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003-VI).
- EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 486/14
Psychiatrie-Opfer scheitert mit erneuter Beschwerde
Dies spricht dafür, die Rüge der Beschwerdeführerin ratione materiae für unvereinbar zu erklären (…vgl. Steck-Risch u. a., a.a.O.;… Kudeshkina, a.a.O.; und Meltex Ltd. ./. Armenien (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 45199/09, 21. Mai 2013;… vgl. und im Gegensatz dazu Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT), a.a.O., wo die innerstaatlichen Gerichte für die Zurückweisung eines Wiederaufnahmeantrags neue Gründe vorgebracht hatten (ebenda, Rdnr. 65)). - EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 26290/12
BURDIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
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; Costica Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, §§ 125-127, 15 February 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Krcmár 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.