ÎNAPOI LA REZULTATE CtEDO

Sursă originală

CtEDO 11.04.2013 Auto

CASE OF ROZHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

RESPONDENT

UKR

HOTĂRÂRE

11.04.2013

Pe scurt

Instanță: CtEDO
Concluzie: Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

RĂSFOIEȘTE: CtEDO · 2013
DESCARCĂ: PDF · DOCX 🔒 Pro

Citează această cauză

CASE OF ROZHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (CtEDO, 2013)

HUDOC · oficial

Cu privire la datele stabilite în tabelele adăugate, instanța internă a pronunțat hotărâri în conformitate cu care reclamanții au dreptul la diferite sume pecuniare sau la anumite acțiuni în favoarea lor. Hotărârile au devenit definitive și executive. Cu toate acestea, reclamanții nu au putut obține executarea hotărârilor în timp util din cauza nerespectării statului cu aceste decizii. Unele dintre reclamante au prezentat, de asemenea, observații cu privire la aspectele factuale și juridice care nu au legătură cu problemele de neexecuție de mai sus.

§ Cauze similare

Grupate prin similitudine semantică

5 cauze

CtEDO 2014-01-09

CASE OF KHAYNATSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

6. On the dates set out in the appended tables domestic courts and labour disputes commissions delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts or to have certain actions taken in their favour

CtEDO 2014-01-09

CASE OF KYSELYOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

5. On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts and a labour disputes commission delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts or to have certain actions taken in their favour

CtEDO 2014-07-31

CASE OF FILATOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

d the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court finds that they do not provide a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights does not require continuing the examination of the application. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS

CtEDO 2005-01-18

SVINTITSKIY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

applicant and awarded him UAH 670 [2]. These court decisions were not appealed and came into force. The execution writs were sent to the Kirovograd Bailiffs' Service for enforcement. Between March 1999 and March 2000 the first and second ap

CtEDO 2013-05-07

ZHURAKIVSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

proceedings to enforce the judgments in favour of the applicants was not excessive. The Government requested the Court to declare the applications inadmissible. The applicants disagreed. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained about the length

Sursă