CtEDO 16.10.2025 Auto

CASE OF M.S.L., TOV v. UKRAINE

RESPONDENT
UKR
HOTĂRÂRE
16.10.2025
Pe scurt
Instanță
CtEDO
Concluzie
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Violation of Article 13+P1-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
RĂSFOIEȘTE: CtEDO · 2025
DESCARCĂ: PDF · DOCX 🔒 Pro
Citează această cauză
CASE OF M.S.L., TOV v. UKRAINE (CtEDO, 2025)
HUDOC · oficial

Rezistarea inadmisibilă (Art. 35) Criterii de admisibilitate;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifest nefondat;Încălcarea articoluluiui 1 din Protocolul nr. 1 - Protecția proprietăților (art. 1 alin. 2 din Protocolul nr. 1 - Controlul utilizării proprietăților;Încălcarea articoluluiui 13+P1-1 - Dreptul la o soluție eficace (art. 13 - Remediare eficace) (art. 1 din Protocolul nr. 1 - Protecția proprietăților;art. 1 alin. 2 din Protocolul nr. 1 - Controlul utilizării proprietăților);Leziuni pecuniare - cerere respinsă (art. 41 - Leziuni pecuniare;Să satisfacem);Leziuni pecuniare - constatarea încălcării suficientă (art. 41 - Leziuni morale;Să satisfacem)

§ Cauze similare

Grupate prin similitudine semantică

5 cauze
CtEDO 2025-10-16
1,00
M.S.L., TOV v. Ukraine
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Violation
CtEDO 2025-10-16
0,99
CASE OF M.S.L., TOV v. UKRAINE - [Ukrainian Translation] by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Violation
CtEDO 2025-01-23
0,95
CASE OF REZNIK v. UKRAINE
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for home;Respect for privat
CtEDO 2020-01-30
0,95
CASE OF SUKACHOV v. UKRAINE
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article
CtEDO 2023-01-12
0,95
CASE OF OVCHARENKO AND KOLOS v. UKRAINE
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a
Sursă