CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 juin 2018
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-184631
- Date
- 21 juin 2018
- Publication
- 21 juin 2018
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 21 June 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 44733/13 Tahir Shirin oglu KAZIMOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 2 June 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unlawful and unjustified refusal by the State Registry of Real Estate of the applicant’s application for a plan ‑ scheme, a document which was required for privatisation of the plot of land in his lawful use on the basis of an occupancy voucher. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? If so, was that interference subject to the conditions provided for by law and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right to a reasoned judgment respected?   3.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right of access to court, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, was the quashing of the final and enforceable judgment of the first-instance court by the appellate court upon the allegedly belated appeal of the other party compatible with the principle of legal certainty?Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 21 juin 2018
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-184631
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel