ÎNAPOI LA REZULTATE CtEDO

Sursă originală

CtEDO 16.01.2018 Auto

CASE OF ANDREY MEDVEDEV v. RUSSIA

RESPONDENT

RUS

HOTĂRÂRE

16.01.2018

Pe scurt

Instanță: CtEDO
Concluzie: Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

RĂSFOIEȘTE: CtEDO · 2018
DESCARCĂ: PDF · DOCX 🔒 Pro

Citează această cauză

CASE OF ANDREY MEDVEDEV v. RUSSIA (CtEDO, 2018)

HUDOC · oficial

În urma pronunțarii hotărârii Curții în cazul reclamantului, reclamantul a depus o cerere la Curtea de district Golovinskiy din Moscova, solicitându-i să revizuiască hotărârea din 30 octombrie 2012, astfel cum a fost confirmată la 12 martie 2013 de Curtea de oraș din Moscova prin care Curtea de district a revocat titlul reclamantului la apartamentul situat la 12-5 Ulitsa Lavochkina, Moscova, a ordonat expulziarea sa și a returnat apartamentul la orașul Moscova. La 10 aprilie 2017, Curtea de District a respins cererea reclamantului. Reclamantul a făcut apel. Părțile nu au informat Curții cu privire la rezultatul procedurii.

§ Cauze similare

Grupate prin similitudine semantică

5 cauze

CtEDO 2020-11-27

ALENKIN v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications

the applicant. On 3 February 2011 the state authorities registered the applicant’s title to the flat. On 3 August 2018 the Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the City of Moscow’s claims in respect of the flat. On 8 April 2019

CtEDO 2014-01-10

MEDVEDEV v. RUSSIA

Communicated on 10 January 2014 FIRST SECTION Application no. 75737/13 Andrey Yuryevich MEDVEDEV against Russia lodged on 22 November 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Andrey Yuryevich Medvedev, is a Russian national, who was born i

CtEDO 2017-03-14

LOGINOV v. RUSSIA

, inter alia, that M. had forged the contract of sale between him and F. On 9 June 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 15 March 2012, in substance, on appeal. 3. Consideration of the dispute in respect of the flat by domestic

CtEDO 2017-06-06

CASE OF NIKOLAYEVY v. RUSSIA

eviction. 15. On 9 October 2009 the District Court granted the Housing Department’s claims in full. The court ruled that the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser’s title, which required that p

CtEDO 2016-10-04

CASE OF ANNA POPOVA v. RUSSIA

According to the Government, the applicant has not been evicted and continues to reside in the flat. 21. On an unspecified date the applicant brought an action against the State, alleging that the local authorities’ inaction had resulted in

Sursă