Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 50811/10

In addition, if one or more heads of damage cannot be calculated precisely, or if the distinction between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage proves difficult, the Court may decide to make an overall assessment (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000-IV).

Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 50811/10

Among the matters which the Court takes into account when assessing compensation are pecuniary damage, which is the loss actually suffered as a direct result of an alleged violation, and non-pecuniary damage, which is reparation for the anxiety, inconvenience, uncertainty and other non-pecuniary loss caused by such violation (see, Zilinskiene v. Lithuania, no. 57675/09, § 60, 1 December 2015).

Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 50811/10

Moreover, the case was to be distinguished from situations where expropriation of the applicants" property had been engaged but not carried out (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52), and where the Court examined the case under the first rule in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 50811/10

The issue as to whether a person may still claim to be the victim of an alleged violation of the Convention essentially entails on the part of the Court an ex post facto examination of his or her situation (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 181, ECHR 2006-V, and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 82, ECHR 2012).

Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 50811/10

The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see, among many other authorities, Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 98, ECHR 2000-I, and Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, § 217, ECHR 2015).