Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIFSUD AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MIFSUD AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 38770/17
• EGMR, 25.11.2021 - 38770/17

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

  Verschleppter Prozess - Mann prozessiert seit 16 Jahren um Entschädigung nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 38770/17

  As to the parts of their complaint which were rejected by the Constitutional Court, it is recalled that the effectiveness of a remedy within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 98, ECHR 2006-VII) and the mere fact that an applicant's claim fails is not in itself sufficient to render the remedy ineffective (see Amann v. Switzerland, [GC], no. 27798/95 §§ 88-89, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 38770/17

  The purpose of this rule is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 1828/06

  G.I.E.M. S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 38770/17

  Indeed, the applicable principles are similar for both types of interferences: in addition to being lawful, a deprivation of possessions or an interference such as the control of use of property must also satisfy the requirement of proportionality (see, with respect to a deprivation of possessions, Scordino, cited above, §§ 81 and 93; Kozacioglu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, §§ 51, 52 and 63, 19 February 2009; Vistins and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, § 94, 25 October 2012; and with respect to the control of the use of property Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, §§ 163, 164 and 167, ECHR 2006-VIII, and G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, §§ 292-93, 28 June 2018).

 
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 38770/17

  The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see Mifsud v. France (dec.), [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002 VIII).
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 24014/07

  SKUDAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 38770/17

  Furthermore, under Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, any plea of inadmissibility must have been raised by the respondent Contracting Party - in so far as the nature of the objection and the circumstances so allowed - in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application (see N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 44, ECHR 2002-X, and Skudayeva v. Russia, no. 24014/07, § 27, 5 March 2019).
• EGMR, 18.12.2002 - 24952/94

  N.C. v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 38770/17

  Furthermore, under Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, any plea of inadmissibility must have been raised by the respondent Contracting Party - in so far as the nature of the objection and the circumstances so allowed - in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application (see N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 44, ECHR 2002-X, and Skudayeva v. Russia, no. 24014/07, § 27, 5 March 2019).
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 55389/00

  DOBREV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 38770/17

  In this connection, the Court notes that the normal practice of the Convention organs where a case has been communicated to the respondent Government has been not to declare the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies unless this matter has been raised by the Government in their observations (see, for example, Dobrev v. Bulgaria, no. 55389/00, § 113, 10 August 2006, and Y v. Latvia, no. 61183/08, § 40, 21 October 2014, and the case-law cited therein).
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 61183/08

  Y v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 38770/17

  In this connection, the Court notes that the normal practice of the Convention organs where a case has been communicated to the respondent Government has been not to declare the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies unless this matter has been raised by the Government in their observations (see, for example, Dobrev v. Bulgaria, no. 55389/00, § 113, 10 August 2006, and Y v. Latvia, no. 61183/08, § 40, 21 October 2014, and the case-law cited therein).
• EGMR, 03.11.2005 - 38244/03

  ABDILLA v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 38770/17

  Nevertheless, in the exercise of its power of review the Court must determine whether the requisite balance was maintained in a manner consonant with the individual's right of property (see Abdilla v. Malta (dec.), no 38244/03, 3 November 2005).
• EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 75225/13

  B. TAGLIAFERRO & SONS LIMITED AND COLEIRO BROTHERS LIMITED v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 38770/17

  75225/13 and 77311/13, § 55, 11 September 2018).