Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WOZNIAK AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 33081/11

  They have been described thus in James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98; see also, among many other authorities, Skibinscy v. Poland, no. 52589/99, § 73, 14 November 2006; Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 31524/96, § 51, 7ECHR 2000-VI; Tarnawczyk v. Poland, no. 27480/02, § 87, 7 December 2010):.

  The requisite balance will not be found if the person or persons concerned have had to bear an individual and excessive burden (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 50, Series A no. 98; Schirmer v. Poland, no. 68880/01, § 35, 21 September 2004 and Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, § 59-60, 8 December 2009).

• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 62543/00

  GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 33081/11

  This also holds true in respect of urban and regional planning policies (see, under Article 6 § 1, Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 70, ECHR 2004-III).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 33081/11

  Although Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 contains no explicit procedural requirements, in order to assess the proportionality of the interference the Court looks at the degree of protection from arbitrariness that is afforded by the proceedings in the case (see Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 46, Series A no. 296-A; Gladysheva v. Russia, no. 7097/10, § 68, 6 December 2011).

 
• EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 49429/99

  CAPITAL BANK AD v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 33081/11

  Any interference must be accompanied by certain procedural guarantees (see Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 134, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts); Forminster Enterprises Limited v. the Czech Republic, no. 38238/04, § 168, 9 October 2008).
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 7097/10

  GLADYSHEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 33081/11

  Although Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 contains no explicit procedural requirements, in order to assess the proportionality of the interference the Court looks at the degree of protection from arbitrariness that is afforded by the proceedings in the case (see Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 46, Series A no. 296-A; Gladysheva v. Russia, no. 7097/10, § 68, 6 December 2011).
• EGMR, 02.04.2014 - 38238/04

  FORMINSTER ENTERPRISES LIMITED CONTRE LA RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 33081/11

  Any interference must be accompanied by certain procedural guarantees (see Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 134, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts); Forminster Enterprises Limited v. the Czech Republic, no. 38238/04, § 168, 9 October 2008).
• EGMR, 23.11.2000 - 25701/94

  Konstantin II.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 33081/11

  Moreover, the rule of law, one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society, is a notion inherent in all the Articles of the Convention (see Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC] (merits), no. 25701/94, § 79, ECHR 2000-XII, and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 147, ECHR 2004-V).
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 30614/06

  IWASZKIEWICZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 33081/11

  Under the system of protection established by the Convention, it is thus for the national authorities to make the initial assessment as to the existence of public concern warranting measures interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see Terazzi S.r.l. v. Italy, 17 October 2002, § 85, Elia S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 37710/97, § 77, ECHR 2001-IX; and Iwaszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 30614/06, § 43, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 59857/00

  BENNICH-ZALEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 33081/11

  The Court's competence ratione temporis to deal with the applications is therefore not excluded (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII, and Bennich-Zalewski v. Poland, no. 59857/00, §§ 74-75, 22 April 2008).