Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 40450/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,68189
EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 40450/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68189)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15.10.2009 - 40450/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68189)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15. Oktober 2009 - 40450/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68189)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,68189) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    YURIY NIKOLAYEVICH IVANOV v. UKRAINE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Violation of Art. 13 Respondent State to take individual measures Respondent State to take measures of a general character Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Sonstiges

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (28)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

    S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 40450/04
    Such measures must also be taken in respect of other persons in the applicant's position, notably by solving the problems that have led to the Court's findings (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000 VIII; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 120, ECHR 2002 VI; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, § 94, ECHR 2005-X; and S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 134, ECHR 2008-...).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 40450/04
    It therefore requires that the States provide a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95

    Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 40450/04
    Such measures must also be taken in respect of other persons in the applicant's position, notably by solving the problems that have led to the Court's findings (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000 VIII; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 120, ECHR 2002 VI; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, § 94, ECHR 2005-X; and S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 134, ECHR 2008-...).
  • EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

    TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 40450/04
    The Government submitted that the above claims were exorbitant and requested the Court to consider them in the light of the criteria laid down in its case-law, referring in particular to Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom (13 July 1995, § 77, Series A no. 316-B).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

    SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 40450/04
    Such measures must also be taken in respect of other persons in the applicant's position, notably by solving the problems that have led to the Court's findings (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000 VIII; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 120, ECHR 2002 VI; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, § 94, ECHR 2005-X; and S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 134, ECHR 2008-...).
  • EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

    BURDOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 40450/04
    An unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may therefore breach the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III).
  • EGMR, 26.04.2006 - 3955/04

    ZUBKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 40450/04
    In assessing the reasonableness of the delay in enforcement due regard must be paid to the fact that a delay of one year and four months in the enforcement of a monetary award against the State body has been found by the Court to be excessive (see Zubko and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 3955/04, 5622/04, 8538/04 and 11418/04, § 70, ECHR 2006-VI).
  • EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 22000/03

    RAYLYAN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 40450/04
    The reasonableness of such delay is to be determined having regard in particular to the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the applicant's own behaviour and that of the competent authorities, and the amount and nature of the court award (see Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
  • EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 6987/07

    GUSEVA v. BULGARIA

    43. As regards enforcement of domestic judicial decisions in favour of individuals against public authorities, the Court has held that any domestic means to prevent a violation by ensuring timely enforcement is, in principle, of greatest value (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 98, ECHR 2009; Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, § 65, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 30767/05

    MARIA ATANASIU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

    La Cour note qu'à la différence des affaires Broniowski et Hutten-Czapska, précitées, dans lesquelles la défaillance dans l'ordre juridique interne a été identifiée pour la première fois, la Cour se prononce dans les présentes affaires après plusieurs arrêts qui ont déjà conclu à la violation des articles 6 § 1 de la Convention et 1 du Protocole no 1 en raison des défaillances du système roumain d'indemnisation ou de restitution (voir, dans le même sens, Bourdov c. Russie (no 2), no 33509/04, §§ 129, CEDH 2009-..., Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov c. Ukraine, no 40450/04, § 83, CEDH 2009-... (extraits)).
  • EGMR, 15.06.2017 - 66328/12

    DNGIKYAN v. ARMENIA

    An unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may therefore breach the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 65, ECHR 2009; and Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, §§ 50-53, 15 October 2009).

    The Court therefore finds that the Armenian authorities, by failing for several years to take the necessary measures to comply with the final judgments, have deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of all useful effect in the present case and that, in the light of the fact that the applicant's property claims have remained unexecuted for an unreasonably long time, they have failed to respect his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, §§ 56-57, 15 October 2009; and Memishaj v. Albania, no. 40430/08, § 33, 25 March 2014).

  • 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, 21.07.2015 - 31833/06

    CINGILLI HOLDING A.S. AND CINGILLIOGLU v. TURKEY

    It refers to its extensive case-law concerning the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see, amongst many other cases, Tacea v. Romania, no. 746/02, 29 September 2005; Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, §§ 38-39, ECHR 2006-XII; Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, §§ 51-57, 15 October 2009; and Süzer and Eksen Holding A.S., cited above, § 114).
  • EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 50609/10

    KIRAKOSYAN v. ARMENIA

    An unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may therefore breach the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 65, ECHR 2009; and Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, §§ 50-53, 15 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2017 - 1849/08

    VELKOVA v. BULGARIA

    Lastly, bearing in mind that proceedings for damages could, in principle, be considered an effective remedy in cases of non-enforcement of final administrative court decisions (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 99, ECHR 2009; Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, § 65, 15 October 2009; and Stoyanov and Tabakov, cited above, § 102) and that the applicant brought such proceedings for damages (see paragraph 15 above), she should not be expected to have also attempted a different remedy in parallel (see Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39 last sentence, ECHR 1999-III; Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, 29 April 2004; and Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, 15 November 2005, where the Court held that if more than one potentially effective remedy was available, the applicant was only required to have attempted to exercise one of them).
  • EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 44452/10

    GAVRILOV v. BULGARIA

    In accordance with the Court's established case-law, execution of a final judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of the "trial" for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention and an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no 59498/00, §§ 34-35, ECHR 2002-III; Mancheva v. Bulgaria, no. 39609/98, § 54, 30 September 2004; Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, § 51, 15 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 18238/06

    YAGNINA v. BULGARIA

    In view of the violation it found of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that the applicant had an arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13. It then recalls that domestic remedies in cases of failure to implement domestic judgments can in principle be either of preventive or of compensatory nature (see Stoyanov and Tabakov v. Bulgaria, no. 34130/04, § 91, 26 November 2013; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 98, ECHR 2009; Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no 40450/04, § 65, CEDH 2009-... (extraits)).).
  • EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 59845/14

    KOZALIEV AND STARCHEV v. BULGARIA

    The court's assessment 30. The Court reiterates that in accordance with its established case-law, execution of a final judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of the "trial" for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention and an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34, ECHR 2002-III; Mancheva v. Bulgaria, no. 39609/98, § 54, 30 September 2004; Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, § 51, 15 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 06.09.2018 - 2866/13

    UZUNOVA AND SEID v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 68185/11

    SHEHOVA v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 62904/12

    FIDANYAN v. ARMENIA

  • EGMR, 18.05.2017 - 75651/11

    NIKOGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA

  • EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 7070/04

    SEMYANISTY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 13.06.2013 - 42953/04

    KISELYOV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 36274/08

    STOJILKOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  • EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 46969/09

    PETROVA v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 50346/07

    DIMITAR YANAKIEV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)

  • EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 7158/04

    ROBOTA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 7321/05

    ALPATOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 6495/09

    MURTIC AND CERIMOVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  • EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 38083/04

    SMIRNOV v. UKRAINE AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

  • EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 39896/05

    DEMCHENKO v. UKRAINE AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

  • EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 644/05

    LAZEBNA v. UKRAINE AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

  • EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 26316/09

    ALYOKHIN v. UKRAINE AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

  • EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 7205/11

    PAPOYAN v. ARMENIA

  • EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 703/05

    KHARUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht