Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 62608/00, 74104/01, 27640/02, 77317/01, 53500/99, 61333/00, 11370/02, 63158/00 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AGROTEHSERVIS ET 7 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'UKRAINE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AGROTEHSERVIS AND 7 OTHER CASES AGAINST UKRAINE
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 62608/00
- EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 62608/00
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 62608/00, 74104/01, 27640/02, 77317/01, 53500/99, 61333/00, 11370/02, 63158/00
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 77317/01 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
POLTORACHENKO v. UKRAINE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the fairness of the proceedings Violation of P1-1 Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 77317/01
The Court recalls that the "reasonable" length of proceedings must be assessed in accordance with the circumstances of the case and the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the behaviour of the applicant and that of the competent authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87
PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 77317/01
The Court reiterates that, according to the established case-law of the Convention organs, "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can include claims in respect of which the applicant can argue that he or she has at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining the effective enjoyment of a property right (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd. and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; Pressos Companía Naviera S.A. v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31). - EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91
PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 77317/01
The Court reiterates that, according to the established case-law of the Convention organs, "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can include claims in respect of which the applicant can argue that he or she has at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining the effective enjoyment of a property right (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd. and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; Pressos Companía Naviera S.A. v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31). - EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76
FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 77317/01
Furthermore, it has to take account not only of the original application but also of the additional documents intended to complete the latter by eliminating initial omissions or obscurities (see Foti and Others v. Italy, judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, § 44). - EGMR, 15.10.1999 - 26614/95
HUMEN c. POLOGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 77317/01
The Court reiterates that only delays attributable to the State may justify a finding of non-compliance with the "reasonable time" requirement (see Humen v. Poland, no. 26614/95, § 66, judgment of 15 October 1999).
- EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 773/03
REGENT COMPANY v. UKRAINE
The Court also notes that it has consistently held that a "claim" can only constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III, and Poltorachenko v. Ukraine, no. 77317/01, § 45, 18 January 2005). - EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 8945/04
CETINKAYA v. TURKEY
The Court also notes that it has consistently held that a "claim" can only constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III, and Poltorachenko v. Ukraine, no. 77317/01, § 45, 18 January 2005). - EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 28668/03
ZÖHRE AKYOL v. TURKEY
The Court also notes that it has consistently held that a "claim" can only constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III, and Poltorachenko v. Ukraine, no. 77317/01, § 45, 18 January 2005).