Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GURITANU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GURITANU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [FRA]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 75732/12

  The Court also reiterates that it should not act as a court of fourth instance and will not therefore question under Article 6 § 1 the judgment of the national courts unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see, among many other authorities, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015, with further references).
• EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 37857/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 75732/12

  In so far as the applicant's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is concerned, in view of the above, the Court considers that the applicant could not have legitimately expected the judgment of 10 November 2008 to definitively determine that he was entitled to the flat no. 21 and thus give rise to a right to property or to a legitimate expectation to obtain any property rights falling under the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Karaivanova and Mileva v. Bulgaria, no. 37857/05, § 76, 17 June 2014).
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 65890/13

  GRYNENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 75732/12

  While the Court accepts the importance of the principle of res judicata, also established in domestic law and practice (see paragraph 10 above), it cannot conclude that both civil proceedings concerned exactly the same persons and legal circumstances and hence the same legal relations, which were crucial for deciding the dispute (compare and contrast Esertas, cited above, § 23; Grynenko v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65890/13, §§ 30-37, 20 September 2022).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 50249/13

  GURMA v. ALBANIA

  It therefore did not contradict the ad personam aspect of the principle of respect for the res judicata effect of judgments (compare Podrugina and Yedinov. v. Russia (dec.), no. 39654/07, 17 February 2009; Tantilovi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 39351/05, § 36, 13 January 2015; and Guriţanu v. Moldova (dec.) [Committee], no. 75732/12, § 21, 8 November 2022).
• EGMR, 25.03.2025 - 47858/17

  DUHANXHIU v. ALBANIA

  It therefore did not contradict the ad personam aspect of the principle of respect for the res judicata effect of judgments (compare Podrugina and Yedinov. v. Russia (dec.), no. 39654/07, 17 February 2009; Guriţanu v. Moldova (dec.) [Committee], no. 75732/12, § 21, 8 November 2022; and Gurma v. Albania (dec.) [Committee], no. 50249/13, § 14, 28 November 2022).