Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 41661/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,55521) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
YAVASHEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Yavashev and Others v. Bulgaria
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 41661/05
- EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 41661/05
- EGMR, 12.11.2014 - 41661/05
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (14)
- EGMR, 15.03.2007 - 43278/98
VELIKOVI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 48380/99
TODOROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 51362/99
ENEVA AND DOBREV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 73465/01
TZILEVI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 41661/05
In particular, there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see, among many other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 69, Series A no. 52, and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 93, ECHR 2006-V). - EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02
Depalle ./. Frankreich - Brosset Triboulet u. a. ./. Frankreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 41661/05
Nevertheless, the Court considers that the general wording of the 1992 Act, coupled with the municipality's continued recognition of the applicants" title for almost ten years, gave rise to a proprietary interest protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Zwierzynski v. Poland, no. 34049/96, §§ 63-64, ECHR 2001-VI; Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 127-29, ECHR 2004-XII; Bruncrona v. Finland, no. 41673/98, § 79, 16 November 2004; Osman v. Bulgaria, no. 43233/98, §§ 96-97, 16 February 2006; Hamer v. Belgium, no. 21861/03, §§ 75-76, ECHR 2007-V (extracts); Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, §§ 62-68, ECHR 2010-...; Brosset-Triboulet and Others v. France [GC], no. 34078/02, §§ 65-71, 29 March 2010; and Bilozir and Rizova v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 37863/05, 28 September 2010). - EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79
BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 41661/05
The Court has consistently held that the terms "law" or "lawful" in the Convention do not merely refer back to domestic law but also relate to the quality of the law, requiring it to be compatible with the rule of law (see, among many other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 67, Series A no. 98). - EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 53367/99
STOYANOVA AND IVANOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 194/02
NIKOLOVI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 69855/01
LYUBOMIR POPOV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 41661/05
The Court is mindful of the fact that in contrast to other cases against Bulgaria, where the recognition of title to restituted property had been made by an authority mandated by law to decide whether the conditions for restitution had been met (see Debelianovi v. Bulgaria, no. 61951/00, § 9, 29 March 2007; Naydenov v. Bulgaria, no. 17353/03, § 68, 26 November 2009; Mutishev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 18967/03, § 123, 3 December 2009; and Lyubomir Popov v. Bulgaria, no. 69855/01, §§ 111 and 117, 7 January 2010), in the instant case no such authority was envisaged by the relevant law (see Ivanova and Others, cited above). - EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 17353/03
NAYDENOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 05.12.2002 - 44548/98
THE SYNOD COLLEGE OF THE EVANGELICAL REFORMED CHURCH OF LITHUANIA v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 37863/05
BILOZIR AND RIZOVA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 30.04.2002 - 40064/98
CREDIT BANK and OTHERS v. BULGARIA