Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANTHONY AQUILINA v. MALTA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Anthony Aquilina v. Malta

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  AQUILINA v. MALTA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 3851/12

  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 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).

  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 v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 50, Series A no. 98; Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 48, Series A no. 169; and Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy, 28 September 1995, § 33, Series A no. 315-B).

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 3851/12

  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, 11.12.2014 - 3851/12

  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 v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 50, Series A no. 98; Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 48, Series A no. 169; and Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy, 28 September 1995, § 33, Series A no. 315-B).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 3851/12

  Indeed, where an issue in the general interest is at stake, it is incumbent on the public authorities to act in good time, and in an appropriate and consistent manner (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 54, ECHR 1999-V, Bittó and Others, cited above, § 98, and Broniowski, cited above, § 151).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

  SPADEA ET SCALABRINO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 3851/12

  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 v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 50, Series A no. 98; Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 48, Series A no. 169; and Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy, 28 September 1995, § 33, Series A no. 315-B).

• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 70520/10

  BEINAROVIC AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  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; Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 78, ECHR 1999-VII; and Anthony Aquilina v. Malta, no. 3851/12, §§ 58-59, 11 December 2014).
• EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 30255/09

  BITTÓ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  In view of the documents before it and also in view of the inherently uncertain character of the damage flowing from the breach found, the Court considers it appropriate to have recourse to equitable considerations, while taking into account the fact that the applicants" claims comprised sums in respect of default interest and its practice in that respect (see also Vistins and Perepjolkins v. Latvia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 71243/01, § 36, ECHR 2014; Ghigo v. Malta (just satisfaction), cited above, § 20; Anthony Aquilina v. Malta, no. 3851/12, § 72, 11 December 2014).
• EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 49378/18

  BARTOLO PARNIS AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  The Court has previously held that rent control schemes and restrictions on an applicant's right to terminate a tenant's lease constitutes control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 (see for example, Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 52, 15 September 2009 and Anthony Aquilina v. Malta, no. 3851/12, § 54, 11 December 2014).

 
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 42322/09

  GRIGALIUNIENE v. LITHUANIA

  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; Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 78, ECHR 1999-VII; and Anthony Aquilina v. Malta, no. 3851/12, §§ 58-59, 11 December 2014, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 42927/08

  TUNAITIS v. LITHUANIA

  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; Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 78, ECHR 1999-VII; and Anthony Aquilina v. Malta, no. 3851/12, §§ 58-59, 11 December 2014, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 28416/19

  FEJZAGIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  The Court has already found a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in a number of cases concerning rent-control schemes (see, among other authorities, Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, ECHR 2006-VIII; Bittó and Others v. Slovakia, no. 30255/09, 28 January 2014; Statileo v. Croatia, no. 12027/10, 10 July 2014; Anthony Aquilina v. Malta, no. 3851/12, 11 December 2014; and Kasmi v. Albania, no. 1175/06, 23 June 2020).
• EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 1167/15

  ZABELOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

  An application will generally fall foul of the first limb of Article 35 § 2 (b) where an applicant has previously brought an application which related essentially to the same person, the same facts and raised the same complaints (see Vojnovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 4819/10, § 28, 26 June 2012; Anthony Aquilina v. Malta, no. 3851/12, § 34, 11 December 2014; and X. v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 4473/14, § 40, 12 May 2015).
• EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 69419/13

  CINGA v. LITHUANIA

  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; Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 78, ECHR 1999-VII; and Anthony Aquilina v. Malta, no. 3851/12, §§ 58-59, 11 December 2014, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 17285/08

  NOREIKIENE AND NOREIKA v. LITHUANIA

  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; Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 78, ECHR 1999-VII; and Anthony Aquilina v. Malta, no. 3851/12, §§ 58-59, 11 December 2014, and the cases cited therein).