Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=24.02.2005&Aktenzeichen=43883/02
Timestamp: 2019-05-24 14:16:47
Document Index: 565394455

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 29', 'Art. 29', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 34', 'Art. 6', '§ 54', '§ 109', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 54', '§ 109', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 16', '§ 23', '§ 35', '§ 23', '§ 22', '§ 20', '§ 16', '§ 17', '§ 35', '§ 23']

EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 43883/02 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2005,63749
EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 43883/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,63749)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.02.2005 - 43883/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,63749)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. Februar 2005 - 43883/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,63749)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,63749) 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. 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, Art. 34 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)
Moreover, having regard to its findings in the judgments recently delivered by the Court, in which it held that the Albanian authorities had to take the appropriate measures in order to comply with final judgments (see Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k., cited above, § 54-59, and also, Beshiri and Others, cited above, § 109) and in the absence of any domestic measures adopted since then allowing the enforcement of compensation awards, the Court considers that it has no other option than to make an award which would constitute a full and final settlement of the property dispute (see, among other authorities, Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 33, 24 February 2005, and OOO Rusatommet v. Russia, no. 61651/00, § 33, 14 June 2005).
Having regard to its findings in the judgments recently delivered by the Court, in which it held that the Albanian authorities had to take the appropriate measures in order to comply with final judgments (see Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k., cited above, § 54-59, and also, Beshiri and Others, cited above, § 109) and in view of the Government's failure to follow the indications given by the Court in the last mentioned judgments to provide for the relevant regulations allowing the enforcement of compensation awards, the Court considers that it has no other option than to make an award which would constitute a full and final settlement of the property dispute (see among other authorities Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 33, 24 February 2005 and OOO Rusatommet v. Russia, no. 61651/00, § 33, 14 June 2005).
Eu égard à la conclusion à laquelle elle est parvenue dans la présente affaire, et sans préjudice des autres mesures envisageables en vue de l'amélioration du régime actuel d'exécution des jugements, la Cour considère que le redressement le plus adéquat consisterait à mettre un terme à la situation de non-exécution critiquée (voir, entre autres, Plotnikovy c. Russie, no 43883/02, § 33, 24 février 2005).
EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 20577/05
SACE ELEKTRIK TICARET VE SANAYI A.S. v. TURKEY
The Court further recalls that the most appropriate form of redress in respect of Article 6 is to ensure that the applicant as far as possible is put in the position he would have been had the requirements of Article 6 not been disregarded (see Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 33, 24 February 2005).
This new judgment would not bring the applicant closer to his desired goal, that is the actual payment of the judicial award or, if appropriate, compensation for late payment (see JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 41510/98, 24 October 2000; Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 16, 24 February 2005).
However, the Court reiterates that it is not open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds, as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 23, 24 February 2005).
In this regard, the Court reiterates that it is not open to a State authority to cite a lack of funds or other resources, such as housing, as an excuse for not honoring a judgment debt (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 35, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts), and Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 23, 24 February 2005).
The Court notes that it has on many occasions rejected arguments similar to the ones raised by the Government in the present case (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia (dec.), no. 59498/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Akashev v. Russia, no. 30616/05, §§ 22-23, 12 June 2008; Nazarchuk v. Ukraine, no. 9670/02, § 20, 19 April 2005; Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 16, 24 February 2005).
EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 2202/05
TISHKEVICH v. RUSSIA
Where a judgment is against a private person, and the main alleged cause of the judgment's non-enforcement is the bailiffs" procrastination, it is appropriate to bring proceedings against the bailiffs to give the State a chance to put matters right internally (see, a contrario, JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 41510/98, 24 October 2000; Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 17, 24 February 2005).
The Court reiterates that it is not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds or other resources, such as housing, as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Malinovskiy, cited above, § 35, and Plotnikovy v. Russia, no. 43883/02, § 23, 24 February 2005).
EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 10232/02
EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 61651/00
EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 30711/03
KOBERNIK v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 27023/06
SEVGUL ALTIPARMAK c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 13909/06
EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 40200/02
KOLOSENKO v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 10415/02
CHERNYSHOV AND 11 OTHERS v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 26365/05
KAZANTSEVA v. RUSSIA