Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHIZANISHVILI AND KANDELAKI v. GEORGIA

  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)

  KHIZANISHVILI AND KANDELAKI v. GEORGIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 25601/12

  Since the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are "practical and effective", it has to be ascertained whether that situation amounted to a de facto expropriation (see, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, pp. 24-25, § 63, and Vasilescu v. Romania, judgment of 22 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, p. 1078, § 51).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 25601/12

  The Court reiterates that in cases where an applicant has died in the course of the proceedings, it has previously taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014; Fartushin v. Russia, no. 38887/09, §§ 31-34, 8 October 2015; and Paposhvili v. Belgium [GC], no. 41738/10, § 126, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 25601/12

  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, and Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 98, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 38887/09

  FARTUSHIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 25601/12

  The Court reiterates that in cases where an applicant has died in the course of the proceedings, it has previously taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014; Fartushin v. Russia, no. 38887/09, §§ 31-34, 8 October 2015; and Paposhvili v. Belgium [GC], no. 41738/10, § 126, ECHR 2016).

• EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 8706/18

  OSMANI v. ALBANIA

  Accordingly, it was not unreasonable for the applicant to have expected full compensation for the resulting damage (compare Khizanishvili and Kandelaki v. Georgia, no. 25601/12, § 54, 17 December 2019).
• EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 47384/07

  AsDAC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  La Convention visant à protéger des droits « concrets et effectifs ", il importe de rechercher si ladite situation équivalait à une expropriation de fait (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Depalle c. France [GC], no 34044/02, § 78, CEDH 2010, et Khizanishvili et Kandelaki c. Géorgie, no 25601/12, § 48, 17 décembre 2019).
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 12549/11

  KHUNDADZEEBI v. GEORGIA

  In this connection, it refers to the possibility available to the applicants to request the reopening of the proceedings in accordance with Article 423 § 1 (g) of the Code of Civil Procedure (see Khizanishvili and Kandelaki v. Georgia, no. 25601/12, § 63, 17 December 2019).