Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=29.04.2008&Aktenzeichen=18648/04
Timestamp: 2019-10-19 16:40:41+00:00

Document:
EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 18648/04 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2008,51825
EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 18648/04 (https://dejure.org/2008,51825)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 29.04.2008 - 18648/04 (https://dejure.org/2008,51825)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 29. April 2008 - 18648/04 (https://dejure.org/2008,51825)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,51825) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+6 Abs. 1 MRK
The Court reiterates at the outset that, as regards disputes whose outcome is decisive for civil rights, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable to the execution of foreign final judgments (see McDonald v. France (dec.), no. 18648/04, 29 April 2008; Saccoccia v. Austria, no. 69917/01, §§ 60-62, 18 December 2008; and Sholokhov v. Armenia and the Republic of Moldova, no. 40358/05, § 66, 31 July 2012).
The Court sees no need to come to a different conclusion for exequatur proceedings, that is, proceedings relating to the execution of a foreign court's decision, provided that the decision in question concerned a civil right or obligation (see Sylvester v. Austria (dec.), no. 54640/00, 9 October 2003, and McDonald v. France (dec.), no. 18648/04, 29 April 2008, both relating to exequatur proceedings for a foreign divorce decree).
[1] (no. 18648/04), published in Clunet (Journal de droit international), 2009, p. 193, commentary by Fabien Marchadier; and Revue critique de droit international privé, 2008, p. 830, commentary by Patrick Kinsch.
EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 40358/05
SHOLOKHOV v. ARMENIA AND MOLDOVA
Besides, where civil rights and obligations are at stake, Article 6 is applicable to the execution of both domestic and foreign final judgments (see McDonald v. France (dec.), no.18648/04, 29 April 2008).
A cet égard, il convient de rappeler que le rôle de la Cour n'est pas d'examiner in abstracto la législation et la pratique pertinentes, mais de rechercher si la manière dont elles ont touché un requérant a enfreint la Convention (Kaufmann c. Italie, no 14021/02, § 33, 19 mai 2005, et, plus récemment, McDonald c. France (déc.), no 18648/04, 29 avril 2008).
Les requérants ne peuvent dès lors se plaindre d'une situation qu'ils ont eux-mêmes contribué à créer par leur propre inaction (Freimanis et Lidums c. Lettonie (déc.), no 73443/01, 30 janvier 2003 et McDonald c. France (déc.), no 18648/04, 29 avril 2008).

References: Art. 6
 Art. 6
 Art. 14
 Art. 14
 § 1
 § 66
 § 33