Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIRBU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Inadmissible under Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 73562/01

  The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 73562/01

  The Court reiterates that freedom to receive information, referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention, "basically prohibits a government from restricting a person from receiving information that others wish or may be willing to impart to him" (see the Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 29, § 74).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 73562/01

  The Court notes that in cases concerning restrictions on freedom of the press it has on a number of occasions recognised that the public has a right to receive information as a corollary of the specific function of journalists, which is to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest (see, among other authorities, the Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, p. 30, § 59 (b), and the Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, p. 27, § 63).

• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 73562/01

  The Court notes that in cases concerning restrictions on freedom of the press it has on a number of occasions recognised that the public has a right to receive information as a corollary of the specific function of journalists, which is to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest (see, among other authorities, the Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, p. 30, § 59 (b), and the Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, p. 27, § 63).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 73562/01

  The Court reiterates that a "claim" can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see the Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, § 59).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 73562/01

  But the delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

  Thus, the plenary Court in Gaskin (cited above, § 52) in 1989 and the Grand Chamber in Guerra in 1998 confirmed this approach, the Grand Chamber adding in the latter judgment that freedom to receive information "cannot be construed as imposing on a State, in circumstances such as those of the present case, positive obligations to collect and disseminate information of its own motion" (see § 53 of the Guerra judgment, cited above; see also Sîrbu and Others v. Moldova, nos. 73562/01, 73565/01, 73712/01, 73744/01, 73972/01 and 73973/01, §§ 17-19, 15 June 2004).
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 6987/07

  GUSEVA v. BULGARIA

  This approach was confirmed in subsequent Grand Chamber judgments (see, in particular, the Grand Chamber judgments in Gaskin v. the United Kingdom (7 July 1989, Series A no. 160), Guerra and Others v. Italy (19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I) and Roche v. the United Kingdom (no. 32555/96, ECHR 2005-X) and Chamber judgments (see, in particular, Sîrbu and Others v. Moldova, nos. 73562/01, 73565/01, 73712/01, 73744/01, 73972/01 and 73973/01, § 18, 15 June 2004, and Jones v United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42639/04, 13 September 2005).
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 2916/02

  LUNTRE CONTRE MOLDOVA ET 52 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  73562/01+.

• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 42619/04

  VLAHOVIC v. SERBIA

  The Court reiterates that the failure of the State to enforce the final judgment rendered in favour of the applicant for a period of almost three years within the Court's competence ratione temporis, Protocol No. 1 having entered into force as regards Serbia on 3 March 2004, constitutes an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, as provided in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Sîrbu and Others v. Moldova, nos. 73562/01, 73565/01, 73712/01, 73744/01, 73972/01 and 73973/01, § 28-33, 15 June 2004).
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 55349/07

  BUREA ET AUTRES c. MOLDOVA

  La Cour rappelle sa position, exprimée à maintes reprises dans des affaires ayant trait au défaut d'exécution, selon laquelle, l'impossibilité, pour un créancier, de faire exécuter intégralement, et dans un délai raisonnable, une décision rendue en sa faveur constitue une violation dans son chef du « droit à un tribunal'consacré par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention, ainsi que du droit à la libre jouissance de ses biens garanti par l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (Prodan c. Moldavie, no 49806/99, §§ 56 et 62, CEDH 2004-III (extraits) ; Sîrbu et autres c. Moldavie, nos 73562/01, 73565/01, 73712/01, 73744/01, 73972/01 et 73973/01, § 40, 15 juin 2004 ; Bourdov c. Russie, no 59498/00, § 34, CEDH 2002-III ; Lupacescu et autres c. Moldavie, nos 3417/02, 5994/02, 28365/02, 5742/03, 8693/03, 31976/03, 13681/03, et 32759/03, § 24, 21 mars 2006 ; etc.).
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 38503/08

  NORMA S.R.L. c. MOLDOVA

  La Cour rappelle sa position, exprimée à maintes reprises dans des affaires ayant trait au défaut d'exécution, selon laquelle, l'impossibilité, pour un créancier, de faire exécuter intégralement, et dans un délai raisonnable, une décision rendue en sa faveur constitue une violation dans son chef du « droit à un tribunal'consacré par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention, ainsi que du droit à la libre jouissance de ses biens garanti par l'article 1 du Protocole no1 (Prodan c. Moldavie, no 49806/99, §§ 56 et 62, CEDH 2004-III (extraits) ; Sîrbu et autres c. Moldavie, nos 73562/01, 73565/01, 73712/01, 73744/01, 73972/01 et 73973/01, § 40, 15 juin 2004 ; Bourdov c. Russie, no 59498/00, § 34, CEDH 2002-III ; Lupacescu et autres c. Moldavie, nos 3417/02, 5994/02, 28365/02, 5742/03, 8693/03, 31976/03, 13681/03, et 32759/03, § 24, 21 mars 2006 ; etc).
• EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 39745/02

  COOPERATIVA AGRICOLA SLOBOZIA-HANESEI v. MOLDOVA

  The issues raised under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention are identical to those found to give rise to violations of those Articles in Prodan v. Moldova (cited above, §§ 56 and 62) and Sîrbu and Others v. Moldova (nos. 73562/01, 73565/01, 73712/01, 73744/01, 73972/01 and 73973/01, § 40, 15 June 2004).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 27261/04

  MISTREANU c. MOLDOVA

  La Cour considère par ailleurs que le jugement du 17 avril 2003 a fait naître dans le chef du requérant un « bien'au sens de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1. Elle rappelle sa position, exprimée à maintes reprises dans des affaires ayant trait au défaut d'exécution, selon laquelle, l'impossibilité, pour un créancier, de faire exécuter intégralement, et dans un délai raisonnable, une décision rendue en sa faveur constitue une violation dans son chef du droit à la libre jouissance de ses biens garanti par l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (Prodan c. Moldova, no 49806/99, §§ 56 et 62, CEDH 2004-III (extraits) ; Sîrbu et autres c. Moldova, nos 73562/01, 73565/01, 73712/01, 73744/01, 73972/01 et 73973/01, § 40, 15 juin 2004 ; Bourdov c. Russie, no 59498/00, § 34, CEDH 2002-III ; Lupacescu et autres c. Moldova, nos 3417/02, 5994/02, 28365/02, 5742/03, 8693/03, 31976/03, 13681/03, et 32759/03, § 24, 21 mars 2006 ; etc.).
• EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 31413/03

  OSOIAN v. MOLDOVA

  73562/01, 73565/01, 73712/01, 73744/01, 73972/01 and 73973/01, § 12, 15 June 2004.
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 10543/02

  VACARENCU v. MOLDOVA

  The issues raised under these Articles are identical to those found to give rise to violations of those Articles in the judgments in the cases of Prodan v. Moldova (cited above, §§ 56 and 62) and Sîrbu and Others v. Moldova (nos. 73562/01, 73565/01, 73712/01, 73744/01, 73972/01 and 73973/01, §§ 27 and 33, 15 June 2004).
• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 31043/04

  COGUT v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 33276/03

  DEORDIEV AND DEORDIEV v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 27533/04

  BUIANOVSCHI v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 26103/04

  TIBERNEAC VASILE v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 17359/04

  MARCU v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 18726/04

  NADULISNEAC ION v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 20567/02

  LOZAN AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 18893/04

  TIBERNEAC v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 25.09.2007 - 31790/03

  MIZERNAIA v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 31753/03

  GURAU v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 09.05.2006 - 3021/02

  LUNGU v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 29.11.2005 - 15840/02

  GRITCO v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 36341/03

  TUDOR-AUTO S.R.L. AND TRIPLU-TUDOR S.R.L. v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 3479/04

  RUSU v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 74459/01

  NOVOTKA v. SLOVAKIA