Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JELICIC c. BOSNIE-HERZEGOVINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 36, Art. 36 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6 Violation de P1-1 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JELICIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 36, Art. 36 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 41183/02
• EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 41183/02
• EGMR, 08.03.2012 - 41183/02

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 41183/02

  Admittedly, a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances, but the delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1 (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002-III, and Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, § 41, 30 June 2005).
• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 11931/03

  TETERINY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 41183/02

  Admittedly, a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances, but the delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1 (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002-III, and Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, § 41, 30 June 2005).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 30.04.2019 - C-556/17

  Torubarov - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und …

  Vgl. z. B. EGMR, Urteile vom 7. Mai 2002, Burdov/Russland (CE:ECHR:2002:0507JUD005949800, §§ 34 bis 37), vom 6. März 2003, Jasi?«niene/Litauen (CE:ECHR:2003:0306JUD004151098, §§ 27 bis 31), vom 7. April 2005, Uzkureliene/Litauen (CE:ECHR:2005:0407JUD006298800, § 36), wo allerdings festgestellt wurde, dass die geltend gemachten Verzögerungen bei der Vollstreckung einer gerichtlichen Entscheidung keinen Verstoß gegen Art. 6 darstellen, vom 7. Juli 2005, Malinovskiy/Russland (CE:ECHR:2005:0707JUD004130202, §§ 34 bis 39), vom 31. Oktober 2006, Jelicic/Bosnien-Herzegovina (CE:ECHR:2006:1031JUD004118302, §§ 38 bis 45), vom 15. Oktober 2009, Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov/Ukraine (CE:ECHR:2009:1015JUD004045004, §§ 51 bis 57), und vom 19. Juni 2012, Murtic und Cerimovic/Bosnien-Herzegovina (CE:ECHR:2012:0619JUD000649509, §§ 27 bis 30).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 28735/06

  RUNIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  The general principles relating to the non-enforcement of domestic judgments were set out in Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, §§ 38-39, ECHR 2006-XII. Notably, the Court has held that it is not open to authorities to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see also R. Kacapor and Others v. Serbia, nos. 2269/06 et al., § 114, 15 January 2008).
• EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 26529/10

  BOBIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  The general principles relating to the non-enforcement of domestic judgments were set out in Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, §§ 38-39 and 48, ECHR 2006-XII. The Court has held in particular that when the authorities are obliged to act in order to enforce a judgment and they fail to do so, their inactivity can engage the State's responsibility on the grounds of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see also Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 71186/01, §§ 84 and 89-93, 7 June 2005).

 
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 1441/07

  MOMIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  The general principles relating to the non-enforcement of domestic judgments were set out in Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, §§ 38-39, ECHR 2006-XII. Notably, the Court has held that it is not open to authorities to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see also R. Kacapor and Others v. Serbia, nos. 2269/06 et al., § 114, 15 January 2008).
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 2910/04

  ÇELEBI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  En outre, elle réitère que la forme la plus appropriée de redressement pour une violation de l'article 6 § 1 consiste à faire en sorte que les requérants se retrouvent autant que possible dans la situation qui auraient été la leur si cette disposition n'avait pas été méconnue (Salduz, précité, § 72, Teteriny c. Russie, no 11931/03, § 56, 30 juin 2005, Jelicic c. Bosnie-Herzégovine, no 41183/02, § 53, CEDH 2006-..., et Mehmet et Suna YiÄŸit c. Turquie, no 52658/99, § 47, 17 juillet 2007).
• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 1200/03

  UMAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  If more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them (Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 39810/04

  LUKAVICA v. CROATIA

  The Court recalls that the most appropriate form of redress in respect of a violation of Article 6 is to ensure that an applicant as far as possible is put in the position he or she would have been had the requirements of Article 6 not been disregarded (see, for example, Muzevic v. Croatia, no. 39299/02, § 91, 16 November 2006; and Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, § 53, to be published in ECHR 2006).
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 21790/04

  YUSUF GEZER c. TURQUIE

  En revanche, elle réaffirme que la forme la plus appropriée de redressement pour une violation de l'article 6 § 1 consiste à faire en sorte que le requérant se retrouve autant que possible dans la situation qui aurait été la sienne si cette disposition n'avait pas été méconnue (Teteriny c. Russie, no 11931/03, § 56, 30 juin 2005, Jelicic c. Bosnie-Herzégovine, no 41183/02, § 53, 31 octobre 2006, et Mehmet et Suna YiÄŸit c. Turquie, no 52658/99, § 47, 17 juillet 2007).