Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 27126/11, 28084/12, 81046/12, 81049/12 |
Zitiervorschläge
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02.07.2013 - 27126/11, 28084/12, 81046/12, 81049/12 (https://dejure.org/2013,30727)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02. Juli 2013 - 27126/11, 28084/12, 81046/12, 81049/12 (https://dejure.org/2013,30727)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,30727) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NOBEL AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 27126/11
The requisite balance will not be struck where the person concerned bears an individual and excessive burden (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69-74 Series A no. 52, and Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 78, ECHR 1999-VII). - EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10522/83
Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 27126/11
In each case involving an alleged violation of that Article the Court must therefore ascertain whether by reason of the State's interference the person concerned had to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden (see James and Others, cited above; Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 48, Series A no. 169; and Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy, judgment of 28 September 1995, § 33, Series A no. 315-B). - EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79
BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 27126/11
The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see, among other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98; Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 98, ECHR 2000-I; and Saliba v. Malta, no. 4251/02, § 31, 8 November 2005). - EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87
SPADEA ET SCALABRINO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 27126/11
In each case involving an alleged violation of that Article the Court must therefore ascertain whether by reason of the State's interference the person concerned had to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden (see James and Others, cited above; Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 48, Series A no. 169; and Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy, judgment of 28 September 1995, § 33, Series A no. 315-B).
- EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 30255/09
BITTÓ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
They fell to be examined under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Such interference must be compatible with the principles of (i) lawfulness, (ii) legitimate aim in the general interest, and (iii) "fair balance" (along with cases cited in the preceding paragraph see, for example, Nobel and Others v. the Netherlands, (dec.), no. 27126/11, § 31, 2 July 2013). - EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 28416/19
FEJZAGIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Thus, the applicant cannot hold that circumstance against the authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Lacz v. Poland (dec.), no. 22665/02, 23 June 2009, and Nobel v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 27126/11 and 3 other applications, § 39, 2 July 2013).