Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MKHCHYAN v. RUSSIA

  No 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)

  MKHCHYAN v. RUSSIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 54700/12

  In order to comply with the rule, applicants should normally use remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 54700/12

  It is observed, however, that the issue of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally determined by reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court (see Shalya v. Russia, no. 27335/13, § 16, 13 November 2014, and Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

  ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 54700/12

  As regards the lawfulness of the interference, the Court, considering that its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see Stolyarova v. Russia, no. 15711/13, § 45, 29 January 2015, and Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, § 57, Series A no. 163), sees no reason to doubt that the interference complained of was in accordance with Russian law since it had a clear basis in Article 222 of the Civil Code.

 
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 54700/12

  The requisite balance will be upset if the person concerned has had to bear "an individual and excessive burden" (see, among other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 50, Series A no. 98).
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 21861/03

  HAMER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 54700/12

  In the Court's view, the applicant in the present case enjoyed at least a long-standing right of use amounting to "possessions" for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (for a case in which a "right of use" amounted to a possession, see Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, §§ 144-49, ECHR 2015; for cases in which long-term occupation amounted to a possession, see Hamer v. Belgium, no. 21861/03, § 76, ECHR 2007-V (extracts), and Depalle, cited above, § 68; see also Öneryildiz, cited above, §§ 124-29).
• EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

  NOGOLICA c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 54700/12

  In cases where the effectiveness of a given remedy was recognised in the Court's case-law after the introduction of an application, the Court deemed it disproportionate to require the applicants to turn to that remedy for redress a long time after they had lodged their applications with the Court, especially after the time-limit for using that remedy had expired (see RiÄ?ic and Others v. Serbia, nos. 53736/08, 53737/08, 14271/11, 17124/11, 24452/11 and 36515/11, § 72, 1 July 2014, and Pikic v. Croatia, no. 16552/02, §§ 29-33, 18 January 2005; and contrast with Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII, in which the applicant could still avail himself of a new remedy).
• EGMR, 04.09.2019 - 51356/99

  NASTOU CONTRE LA GRÈCE ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 54700/12

  The taking of property without payment of an amount reasonably related to its value will normally constitute a disproportionate interference, and a total lack of compensation can be considered justifiable under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention only in exceptional circumstances (see Nastou v. Greece (no. 2), no. 16163/02, § 33, 15 July 2005; Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 16552/02

  PIKIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 54700/12

  In cases where the effectiveness of a given remedy was recognised in the Court's case-law after the introduction of an application, the Court deemed it disproportionate to require the applicants to turn to that remedy for redress a long time after they had lodged their applications with the Court, especially after the time-limit for using that remedy had expired (see RiÄ?ic and Others v. Serbia, nos. 53736/08, 53737/08, 14271/11, 17124/11, 24452/11 and 36515/11, § 72, 1 July 2014, and Pikic v. Croatia, no. 16552/02, §§ 29-33, 18 January 2005; and contrast with Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII, in which the applicant could still avail himself of a new remedy).
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 27335/13

  SHALYA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 54700/12

  It is observed, however, that the issue of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally determined by reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court (see Shalya v. Russia, no. 27335/13, § 16, 13 November 2014, and Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53736/08

  RIDIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 54700/12

  In cases where the effectiveness of a given remedy was recognised in the Court's case-law after the introduction of an application, the Court deemed it disproportionate to require the applicants to turn to that remedy for redress a long time after they had lodged their applications with the Court, especially after the time-limit for using that remedy had expired (see RiÄ?ic and Others v. Serbia, nos. 53736/08, 53737/08, 14271/11, 17124/11, 24452/11 and 36515/11, § 72, 1 July 2014, and Pikic v. Croatia, no. 16552/02, §§ 29-33, 18 January 2005; and contrast with Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII, in which the applicant could still avail himself of a new remedy).

• EGMR, 02.05.2024 - 35271/19

  THE J. PAUL GETTY TRUST AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  It therefore considers that, irrespective of the above observations concerning whether lawful ownership existed, the length of time that passed had in any event the effect of conferring on the applicant a proprietary interest in peaceful enjoyment of the Statue that was sufficiently established and weighty to amount to a "possession" (see, mutatis mutandis, Beyeler, § 104; Edwards, § 55; Depalle, § 68, all cited above; see also Hamer v. Belgium, no. 21861/03, § 76, ECHR 2007-V (extracts), and Mkhchyan v. Russia, no. 54700/12, § 63, 7 February 2017).
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 54490/10

  ZHIDOV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Cependant, la Cour a déjà eu l'occasion de juger implicitement que l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention s'appliquait au contentieux civil relatif aux constructions illégales intenté par une société des chemins de fer (Mkhchyan c. Russie, no 54700/12, §§ 69-70, 7 février 2017) ou engagé dans l'intérêt des tiers (Allard c. Suède, no 35179/97, §§ 50 et 52, CEDH 2003-VII).
• EGMR, 23.11.2021 - 40444/17

  KOOPERATIV NEPTUN SERVIS c. RUSSIE

  Il cite enfin l'arrêt Mkhchyan c. Russie (no 54700/12, § 76, 7 février 2017), où la Cour a conclu que l'injonction de démolir une construction illégale n'avait pas emporté violation de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 car l'intérêt public consistant à assurer l'absence de telles constructions dans la zone de protection des voies ferrées prévalait sur l'intérêt individuel du requérant.

 
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 30106/10

  BIDZHIYEVA c. RUSSIE

  Elle l'examinera ainsi dans la partie correspondante (voir, pour une approche similaire, Mkhchyan c. Russie, no 54700/12, § 44, 7 février 2017).
• EGMR, 16.11.2023 - 57841/15

  SATANINA v. UKRAINE

  Nor were there sufficient grounds for her to claim a substantive interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the land plot in question, which was eventually allotted to the Education Department (contrast Mkhchyan v. Russia, no. 54700/12, § 63, 7 February 2017).
• EGMR, 22.09.2020 - 30495/13

  PODOYNITSYN c. RUSSIE

  Néanmoins, dans certaines requêtes introduites contre la Russie, la Cour a conclu que les constructions illégales étaient les « biens'des requérants (Mkhchyan c. Russie, no 54700/12, §§ 63-64, 7 février 2017, Zhidov et autres c. Russie, nos 54490/10 et 3 autres, § 77-78, 16 octobre 2018, et Kvyatkovskiy c. Russie (déc.), no 6390/18, § 24, 25 septembre 2018).
• EGMR, 28.09.2023 - 35983/22

  FRANCE.COM INC. c. FRANCE

  Au cas d'espèce, elle relève que si la société requérante a, comme elle le prétend, investi dans le développement du site « www.france.com ", elle a également pu tirer profit de l'exploitation de ce nom de domaine pendant plusieurs années (voir, mutatis mutandis, Mkhchyan c. Russie, no 54700/12, § 76, 7 février 2017).
• EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 57964/08

  KOTUMANOVA c. RUSSIE

  En outre, à l'exception du certificat de propriété obtenu par la requérante abusivement (paragraphes 8 et 31 ci-dessus) au moment où un jugement lui avait déjà ordonné de démolir la maison en tant que construction illégale, les autorités n'ont à aucun moment reconnu son droit de propriété sur la maison (voir, mutatis mutandis, Kalandadze c. Russie (déc. comité), no 7721/06, 5 septembre 2017, et, a contrario, Mkhchyan c. Russie, no 54700/12, § 63, 7 février 2017).