Webinar: Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Mi. den 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 72493/10   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2015,12607
EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 72493/10 (https://dejure.org/2015,12607)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09.06.2015 - 72493/10 (https://dejure.org/2015,12607)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09. Juni 2015 - 72493/10 (https://dejure.org/2015,12607)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,12607) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DRAFT - OVA A.S. v. SLOVAKIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing Equality of arms) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 72493/10
    The Court reiterates that the existence of a debt confirmed by a binding and enforceable judgment furnishes the judgment beneficiary with a "legitimate expectation" that the debt would be paid, and constitutes the beneficiary's "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The quashing of such a judgment amounts to an interference with the beneficiary's right to peaceful enjoyment of his or her possessions (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 74, ECHR 1999-VII) which, in order to be compatible with the requirements of that provision, must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 69, Series A no. 52).
  • EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91
    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 72493/10
    In particular, there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised by any measure depriving a person of his possessions (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 38, Series A no. 332).
  • EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 30189/07

    ISTVAN AND ISTVANOVA v. SLOVAKIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 72493/10
    Accordingly, the Court decides not to award any sum under this head (István and Istvánová v. Slovakia, no. 30189/07, § 122, 12 June 2012).
  • EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

    Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 72493/10
    Accordingly, Article 34 does not provide individuals with a remedy in the nature of an actio popularis (see, for example, Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28; Slivková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 32872/03, 14 December 2004; and Fruni v. Slovakia, no. 8014/07, § 133, 21 June 2011).
  • EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 8014/07

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 72493/10
    Accordingly, Article 34 does not provide individuals with a remedy in the nature of an actio popularis (see, for example, Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28; Slivková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 32872/03, 14 December 2004; and Fruni v. Slovakia, no. 8014/07, § 133, 21 June 2011).
  • EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 24360/04

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 72493/10
    In that regard, the Court observes that the relevant Convention principles have been summarised in its judgment in the case of Giuran v. Romania (no. 24360/04, §§ 28-32, ECHR 2011 (extracts), with further references) as follows:.
  • EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 35090/07

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 72493/10
    The relevant provisions concerning appeals on points of law (dovolanie) are summarised, for example, in the Court's decision in Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 35090/07, §§ 65-68, 4 October 2011, with further references).
  • EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 32872/03

    SLIVKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 72493/10
    Accordingly, Article 34 does not provide individuals with a remedy in the nature of an actio popularis (see, for example, Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28; Slivková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 32872/03, 14 December 2004; and Fruni v. Slovakia, no. 8014/07, § 133, 21 June 2011).
  • EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 74175/17

    PÁDEJ v. SLOVAKIA

    The relevant domestic law and practice and European texts have been summarised in the Court's judgments in, inter alia, DRAFT - OVA a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 72493/10, §§ 39-56 and 58-61, 9 June 2015, with further references) and Bosits v. Slovakia [Committee] (no. 75041/17, §§ 17-20, 19 May 2020).

    The Government relied on the principles outlined in DRAFT - OVA a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 72493/10, § 77, 9 June 2015).

  • EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 35361/17

    TÓTH v. SLOVAKIA

    He referred to the Constitutional Court's unifying opinion of 18 March 2015 (PLz. ÚS 3/2015) and the European Court's case-law in the cases of DRAFT - OVA a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 72493/10, 9 June 2015), PSMA, spol.

    The relevant domestic law and practice and European texts have been summarised in the Court's judgments in, inter alia, DRAFT - OVA a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 72493/10, §§ 39-56 and 58-61, 9 June 2015, with further references), PSMA, spol.

  • EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 21998/14

    LISPUCHOVÁ AND LISPUCH v. SLOVAKIA

    The relevant domestic law and practice and European texts have been summarised in the Court's judgment in, inter alia, the case of DRAFT - OVA a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 72493/10, §§ 39-56 and 58-61, 9 June 2015).

    In a further reply, the Government argued that the Constitutional Court's decision of 10 September 2013 did not prejudice the assessment of the applicants' pending complaint, in particular because the Constitutional Court would be bound to take into account the principles stemming from the Court's judgment in the case of DRAFT - OVA a.s. (no. 72493/10, 9 June 2015), which had been given after the decision of 10 September 2013.

  • EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 10465/17

    A.P. v. SLOVAKIA

    Its task is not to review domestic law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to or affected the applicant gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see DRAFT - OVA a.s. v. Slovakia, no. 72493/10, § 65, 9 June 2015, with further references).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 27803/16

    PIRAS v. SAN MARINO

    Its task is not to review domestic law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to, or affected the applicant, gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see DRAFT - OVA a.s. v. Slovakia, no. 72493/10, § 65, 9 June 2015).
  • EGMR, 19.05.2020 - 75041/17

    BOSITS v. SLOVAKIA

    The relevant domestic law and practice and European texts have been summarised in the Court's judgment in, inter alia, the case of DRAFT - OVA a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 72493/10, §§ 39-56 and 58-61, 9 June 2015).
  • EGMR, 19.05.2020 - 55610/18

    RS INVESTMENT LTD v. SLOVAKIA

    The relevant domestic law and practice and European texts have been summarised in the Court's judgment in, inter alia, the case of DRAFT - OVA a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 72493/10, §§ 39-56 and 58-61, 9 June 2015).
  • EGMR, 10.07.2025 - 34281/20

    UNICOM JIV, S.R.O. v. SLOVAKIA

    Referring to the principles set out in the Court's judgments DRAFT - OVA a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 72493/10, 9 June 2015), COMPCAR, s.r.o. v. Slovakia (no. 25132/13, 9 June 2015) and PSMA, spol.
  • EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 46341/17

    SLOVDAN, SPOL. S R.O. v. SLOVAKIA

    The Government sought to distinguish the present case from that of DRAFT - OVA a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 72493/10, §§ 91-93, 9 June 2015), arguing that in that case the quashing of a final and binding judgment had taken place upon the Prosecutor General's extraordinary appeal on points of law, while in the present case it had been upon the defendant's constitutional complaint.
  • EGMR, 19.05.2020 - 2749/17

    REDQUEST LIMITED v. SLOVAKIA

    The relevant domestic law and practice and European texts have been summarised in the Court's judgments in, inter alia, the case of DRAFT - OVA a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 72493/10, §§ 39-56 and 58-61, 9 June 2015).
  • EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 37016/15

    NERUSIL v. SLOVAKIA

  • EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 60039/13

    UKROPEC v. SLOVAKIA

  • EGMR, 26.07.2016 - 68066/12

    ADAM v. SLOVAKIA

  • EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 58404/19

    GLONCÁKOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht