CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 septembre 2020
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-204805
- Date
- 3 septembre 2020
- Publication
- 3 septembre 2020
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 } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 28 August 2017 and 3 September 2020 Published on 21 September 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 50609/10 Emma KIRAKOSYAN against Armenia lodged on 23 August 2010     The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS 1.     Having regard to the findings of the Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan in its judgment of 30 March 2018 as upheld in the final instance by the Court of Cassation on 12 December 2018, has the judgment of the Civil Court of Appeal of 3 March 2005 been fully and timely enforced? If not, is this fact compatible with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Fuklev v. Ukraine , no. 71186/01, §§ 67 and 84, 7 June 2005; Ruianu v. Romania , no. 34647/97, § 66, 17 June 2003?   2.     If the judgment of the Civil Court of Appeal of 3 March 2005 has not been fully enforced, is its continuing non-enforcement compatible with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Kesyan v.   Russia , no. 36496/02, § 80, 19 October 2006)?   3.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Fuklev , cited above, § 87)?Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 3 septembre 2020
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-204805
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel