Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MATCZYNSKI v. POLAND

  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)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32794/07

  The Court reiterates that in today's society the protection of the environment is an increasingly important consideration (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 48, Series A no. 192, cited in Hamer v. Belgium, no. 21861/03, § 79, ECHR 2007-XIII (extracts); Turgut and Others v. Turkey, no. 1411/03, § 90, 8 July 2008; and Rimer and Others v. Turkey, no. 18257/04, § 38, 10 March 2009).

  Consideration must be given in particular to the question of whether the applicant, on acquiring the property, knew - or should have reasonably known - about the restrictions on the property, or possible future restrictions (see Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, §§ 60-61, Series A no. 163, and Lacz v. Poland (dec.), no. 22665/02, 23 June 2009), the existence of legitimate expectations with respect to the use of the property or acceptance of the risk on purchase (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 54, Series A no. 192), the extent to which the restriction prevented use of the property (see Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, 27 October 1994, § 46, Series A no. 293-B, and SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)) and the possibility of challenging the need for the restriction (see Phocas v. France, 23 April 1996, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, and Papastavrou and Others v. Greece, no. 46372/99, § 37, ECHR 2003-IV).

• EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

  ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32794/07

  Consideration must be given in particular to the question of whether the applicant, on acquiring the property, knew - or should have reasonably known - about the restrictions on the property, or possible future restrictions (see Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, §§ 60-61, Series A no. 163, and Lacz v. Poland (dec.), no. 22665/02, 23 June 2009), the existence of legitimate expectations with respect to the use of the property or acceptance of the risk on purchase (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 54, Series A no. 192), the extent to which the restriction prevented use of the property (see Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, 27 October 1994, § 46, Series A no. 293-B, and SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)) and the possibility of challenging the need for the restriction (see Phocas v. France, 23 April 1996, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, and Papastavrou and Others v. Greece, no. 46372/99, § 37, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 61093/00

  SCEA FERME DE FRESNOY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32794/07

  Consideration must be given in particular to the question of whether the applicant, on acquiring the property, knew - or should have reasonably known - about the restrictions on the property, or possible future restrictions (see Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, §§ 60-61, Series A no. 163, and Lacz v. Poland (dec.), no. 22665/02, 23 June 2009), the existence of legitimate expectations with respect to the use of the property or acceptance of the risk on purchase (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 54, Series A no. 192), the extent to which the restriction prevented use of the property (see Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, 27 October 1994, § 46, Series A no. 293-B, and SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)) and the possibility of challenging the need for the restriction (see Phocas v. France, 23 April 1996, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, and Papastavrou and Others v. Greece, no. 46372/99, § 37, ECHR 2003-IV).

 
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 37959/04

  SINAN YILDIZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32794/07

  With reference to the interference with proprietary rights, the State has a wide margin of discretion as to what is "in accordance with the general interest", particularly where environmental and cultural heritage issues are concerned (see, mutatis mutandis, Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 112, ECHR 2000-I; Kozacioglu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, § 53, 19 February 2009; and Yildiz and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 37959/04, 12 January 2010).
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 22665/02

  LACZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32794/07

  Consideration must be given in particular to the question of whether the applicant, on acquiring the property, knew - or should have reasonably known - about the restrictions on the property, or possible future restrictions (see Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, §§ 60-61, Series A no. 163, and Lacz v. Poland (dec.), no. 22665/02, 23 June 2009), the existence of legitimate expectations with respect to the use of the property or acceptance of the risk on purchase (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 54, Series A no. 192), the extent to which the restriction prevented use of the property (see Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, 27 October 1994, § 46, Series A no. 293-B, and SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)) and the possibility of challenging the need for the restriction (see Phocas v. France, 23 April 1996, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, and Papastavrou and Others v. Greece, no. 46372/99, § 37, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 26.02.2008 - 37664/04

  FÄGERSKIÖLD v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32794/07

  The Court has, moreover, often reiterated that regional planning and environmental conservation policies, where the community's general interest is pre-eminent, confer on the State a margin of appreciation that is greater than when exclusively civil rights are at stake (see, mutatis mutandis, Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 70, ECHR 2004-III; Alatulkkila and Others v. Finland, no. 33538/96, § 67, 28 July 2005; Valico S.r.l. v. Italy (dec.), no. 70074/01, ECHR 2006-III; and Fägerskiöld v. Sweden (dec.), no. 37664/04, 26 February 2008).
• EKMR, 08.09.1997 - 30229/96

  J. M.F. ET AUTRES contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32794/07

  From the ratification date onwards, all the State's alleged acts and omissions must conform to the Convention or its Protocols and subsequent facts fall within the Court's jurisdiction even where they are merely extensions of an already existing situation (see, for example, Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 29.06.2000 - 47634/99

  KADIKIS contre la LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32794/07

  The Government submitted that, in accordance with the general rules of international law, the provisions of the Convention and its Protocol did not bind a Contracting Party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the Convention and its Protocols with respect to that Party (see KadiÄ is v. Latvia (dec.), no. 47634/99, judgment of 29 June 2000).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32794/07

  Nevertheless, in exercising its power of review, the Court must determine whether the requisite balance was maintained in a manner consonant with the applicant's right to property (see, mutatis mutandis, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 69, Series A no. 52).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32794/07

  In determining whether this requirement is met, the Court recognises that the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 75, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 29813/96

  ALMEIDA GARRETT, MASCARENHAS FALCAO AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 62543/00

  GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 27265/95

  TERAZZI S.R.L. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 70074/01

  VALICO S.R.L. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 21861/03

  HAMER v. BELGIUM

• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 32377/12

  WERRA NATURSTEIN GMBH & CO KG v. GERMANY

  Unter Verweis auf die Rechtssache Matczynski (Matczynski./. Polen, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 32794/07, Rdnr. 106, 15. Dezember 2015) trug sie vor, dass der Beschwerdeführerin zu dem Zeitpunkt, zu dem sie das Grundstück und die Bewilligung erworben hatte, die sich aus § 124 des Bundesberggesetzes (siehe Rdnrn. 21-22) ergebenden Einschränkungen bekannt gewesen seien oder bei vernünftiger Betrachtungsweise hätten bekannt sein müssen.
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 44460/16

  O'SULLIVAN McCARTHY MUSSEL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. IRELAND

  40886/06 and 51946/07, 6 October 2016; Matczynski v. Poland, no. 32794/07, 15 December 2015; Alatulkkila and Others v. Finland, no. 33538/96, 28 July 2005; and Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, ECHR 2002-VII. The pursuit of this aim was not confined to the applicant company's particular circumstances, but extended to all aquaculture operators based in designated locations around the coastline.
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 37911/12

  S.S. OKUMUSLAR KONUT YAPI KOOPERATIFI c. TURQUIE

  En ce qui concerne l'appréciation de cet équilibre lorsque son en cause des questions d'inconstructibilité, la Cour renvoie à la jurisprudence découlant notamment des affaires Perinelli et autres (décision précitée), Longobardi (décision précitée), Sinan Yildiz et autres (décision précitée), Matczy?„ski c. Pologne (no 32794/07, § 99 à 115, 15 décembre 2015) et Malfatto et Mielle (précité).

 
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 70520/10

  BEINAROVIC AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  The Court has previously held that the protection of nature and forests falls within the scope of public interest within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Turgut and Others v. Turkey, no. 1411/03, § 90, 8 July 2008; Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 81, ECHR 2010; and Matczynski v. Poland, no. 32794/07, § 101, 15 December 2015).
• EGMR, 13.09.2022 - 78909/17

  UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX PARISH OF THE HOLY TRINITY CHURCH IN NOGINSK AND OTHERS v. …

  Nevertheless, in exercising its power of review, the Court must determine whether the requisite balance was maintained in a manner consonant with the applicant's right to property (see Matczynski v. Poland, no. 32794/07, § 48, 15 December 2015).
• EGMR, 23.11.2021 - 58945/12

  EMVAK KONUT YAPI KOOPERATIFI c. TURQUIE

  L'intéressée ne pouvait donc raisonnablement s'attendre à percevoir une indemnité du fait de l'existence même de cette servitude et, par conséquent, devait déjà accepter un tel risque lors de l'acquisition du terrain litigieux (Matczynski c. Pologne, no 32794/07, § 109, 15 décembre 2015).
• EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 43522/18

  ÖZTÜRK c. TURQUIE

  Il ne pouvait donc raisonnablement s'attendre à obtenir un permis pour l'aménager, notamment pour y construire, et, par conséquent, il doit ainsi être considéré comme ayant accepté un tel risque lors de l'acquisition du terrain litigieux (Matczynski c. Pologne, no 32794/07, § 109, 15 décembre 2015).
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 42961/18

  YIGIT c. TURQUIE

  La Cour estime dès lors que l'intéressé savait ou aurait dû savoir lorsqu'il a acheté le terrain que, selon le plan d'urbanisme en vigueur à ce moment-là, il s'agissait d'un bien classé en « zone publique destinée à un complexe sportif ": il ne pouvait donc raisonnablement s'attendre à obtenir un permis d'aménagement, notamment un permis de construire, et par conséquent il y a lieu de considérer qu'il avait accepté l'existence d'un risque (Matczynski c. Pologne, no 32794/07, § 109, 15 décembre 2015).
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 41965/18

  BULAT c. TURQUIE

  Il ne pouvait donc raisonnablement s'attendre à obtenir un permis pour l'aménager, notamment pour y construire, et, par conséquent, il doit ainsi être considéré comme ayant accepté un tel risque lors de l'acquisition du terrain litigieux (Matczynski c. Pologne, no 32794/07, § 109, 15 décembre 2015).
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 42935/18

  GENÇ c. TURQUIE

  Il ne pouvait donc raisonnablement s'attendre à obtenir un permis d'aménagement, notamment pour construire sur ce terrain, et par conséquent il doit être considéré comme ayant accepté l'existence d'un risque dès l'achat du terrain litigieux (Matczynski c. Pologne, no 32794/07, § 109, 15 décembre 2015).
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 45307/18

  EROL c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 45319/18

  TUNÇYÜZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 45336/18

  ÖZTEK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR - 23550/22 (anhängig)

  BILGIN ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 42797/18

  BOZTEPE c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 64661/11

  SHYNKARENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 1292/19

  SAHIN c. TURQUIE