Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BELOVA 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);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BELOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 33955/08

  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, 05.11.2002 - 36548/97

  PINCOVÁ ET PINC c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 33955/08

  The Court also reiterates that "the attenuation of past injustices [should] not create new wrongs" and "persons who acquired their possessions in good faith [should not be] made to bear the burden of responsibility which is rightfully that of the State" (see Pincová and Pinc v. the Czech Republic, no. 36548/97, § 58, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 69735/11

  VUKUSIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 33955/08

  Authorities should be able to correct their mistakes, but not in a situation where the individual concerned is required to bear an excessive burden (see Vuku?.ic v. Croatia, no. 69735/11, § 64, 31 May 2016, with case-law cited therein).

• EGMR, 02.05.2024 - 35271/19

  THE J. PAUL GETTY TRUST AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  In the context of the general rule established in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1, ascertaining whether such a balance existed requires an overall examination of the various interests in issue (see Belova v. Russia, no. 33955/08, § 37, 15 September 2020), which may call for an analysis not only of the compensation terms - if the situation is akin to the taking of property - but also, as in the instant case, of the conduct of the parties to the dispute, including the means employed by the State and their implementation (see Beyeler, cited above, § 114, and Vod Baur Impex S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 17060/15, § 69, 24 April 2022).
• EGMR - 44832/17 (anhängig)

  VELMISKINA v. RUSSIA and 11 other applications

  (ii) Did the applicants act as bona fide buyers, in the light of the principles developed by the Court in its case-law (see Muharrem Günes and Others, cited above, § 80; Seregin and Others, cited above, §§ 108-109, and compare and contrast with Belova v. Russia, no. 33955/08, §§ 40-41, 15 September 2020) as well as taking into account the criteria set forth in Joint Ruling of the Plenary of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenary of the High Commercial Court of the Russian Federation of 29 April 2010 no. 10/22 (see Seregin and Others, cited above, § 64)?.
• EGMR, 18.04.2023 - 61380/15

  DEMIRAY c. TÜRKIYE

  La Cour considère que rien n'interdit en principe la prise en compte d'une faute de l'intéressé dans la fixation de la compensation à lui octroyer (voir, mutatis mutandis, Belova c. Russie, no 33955/08, § 41, 15 septembre 2020).

 
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 12549/11

  KHUNDADZEEBI v. GEORGIA

  However, the absence of any reference to the issue of damage in the reasoning of the domestic courts in the two cases can scarcely stand the test of procedural fairness which is inherent in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court has previously held that the taking of property without payment of an amount reasonably related to its value will normally constitute a disproportionate interference and that a total lack of compensation can be considered justifiable under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 only in exceptional circumstances (see Paplauskiene v. Lithuania, no. 31102/06, § 49, 14 October 2014; see also Rysovskyy, cited above, § 71, and Belova v. Russia, no. 33955/08, § 37, 15 September 2020).
• EGMR, 23.11.2021 - 30741/19

  ALENKIN c. RUSSIE

  Elle estime aussi qu'en achetant l'appartement faisant l'objet d'un contentieux et à l'issue d'une chaîne de reventes dans un court laps de temps, le requérant n'a pas fait montre d'une vigilance suffisante (Maltsev et autres c. Russie, nos 77335/14 et 2 autres, § 34, 17 décembre 2019, Belova c. Russie, no 33955/08, §§ 40-41, 15 septembre 2020, et Seregin et autres, précité, § 94).
• EGMR - 53130/22 (anhängig)

  VIRASSAMY c. FRANCE

  Le droit de la requérante de comparaître et d'être entendue en appel a-t-il été respecté (Gankin et autres c. Russie, nos 2430/06 et 3 autres, § 33, 31 mai 2016, Schmidt c. Lettonie, no 22493/05, § 86 et 90, 27 avril 2017, et Belova c. Russie, no 33955/08, § 51-55, 15 septembre 2020) ?.
• EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 61417/15

  LI c. RUSSIE

  Dans ces circonstances où la juridiction de cassation ne s'est assurée, ni que le requérant ou sa représentante ont été dûment convoqués, ni qu'ils ont été au courant de la procédure de cassation, et où elle n'a aucunement traité cette question dans son arrêt annulant l'arrêt d'appel et confirmant le jugement de première instance, la Cour conclut que le droit du requérant de présenter effectivement sa cause en cassation n'a pas été respecté (mutatis mutandis, Gankin et autres, précité, §§ 40-44, et, s'agissant précisément de la procédure de cassation, Belova c. Russie, no 33955/08, §§ 52-54, 15 septembre 2020, et les références qui sont citées dans ces deux arrêts).