Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VUKOVIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VUKOVIC v. CROATIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 23662/12

  The Court reiterates in this regard that where a proprietary interest is in the nature of a claim, it may be regarded as an "asset" and therefore a "possession" attracting the guarantees of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, only if there is a sufficient basis for that interest in national law (for example, where there is settled case-law of the domestic courts confirming it), that is, when the claim is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Kopecký, cited above, §§ 49 and 52, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 59, Series A no. 301-B).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 23662/12

  First, in expropriation cases the Court's power of review is in any event limited to ascertaining whether the choice of compensation terms falls outside the State's margin of appreciation (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 54, Series A no. 98; Andersson v. Sweden, no. 14083/88, Commission decision of 7 January 1991, unpublished; and Grainger and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34940/10, ECHR 10 July 2012).
• EKMR, 08.09.1997 - 30229/96

  J. M.F. ET AUTRES contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 23662/12

  Therefore, the violation complained of cannot be equated to a deprivation of possessions within the meaning of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 48, ECHR 2000-I).

 
• EKMR, 13.12.1979 - 7987/77

  COMPANY X. v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 23662/12

  Furthermore, while Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in principle recognises a right to compensation in the case of expropriation, it does not guarantee the right to a particular amount of compensation, except where a reduction affects the very substance of the right to compensation (see Company X. v. Austria, no. 7987/77, Commission decision of 13 December 1979, Decisions and Reports (DR) 18, p.p. 31 and 48; K. v. Austria, no. 18809/91, Commission decision of 13 January 1992, unpublished; Firma F.M. Zumtobel and Zumtobel.
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34940/10

  GRAINGER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 23662/12

  First, in expropriation cases the Court's power of review is in any event limited to ascertaining whether the choice of compensation terms falls outside the State's margin of appreciation (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 54, Series A no. 98; Andersson v. Sweden, no. 14083/88, Commission decision of 7 January 1991, unpublished; and Grainger and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34940/10, ECHR 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 29813/96

  ALMEIDA GARRETT, MASCARENHAS FALCAO AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 23662/12

  Therefore, the violation complained of cannot be equated to a deprivation of possessions within the meaning of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 48, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 44912/98

  KOPECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 23662/12

  The Court further reiterates that the Convention imposes no specific obligation on the Contracting States to provide redress for wrongs or damage caused prior to that date (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 38, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 03.09.2009 - 17124/05

  PAVLINOVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 23662/12

  It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, even in those fields where the Convention "incorporates" the rules of that law, since the national authorities are, in the nature of things, particularly qualified to settle the issues arising in this connection (see Pavlinovic and Tonic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 17124/05 and 17126/05, 3 September 2009).
• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 8851/07

  SANCHO CRUZ ET AUTRES AFFAIRES " RÉFORME AGRAIRE " c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 23662/12

  It is precisely for that reasons that the Court has held that in such cases it had no power to examine, among other matters, the issues linked to the amount of compensation (see Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others, cited above, § 48; Jorge Nina Jorge and Others v. Portugal, no. 52662/99, § 42, 19 February 2004; Fernandes Formigal de Arriaga and 15 other "Agrarian Reform" cases v. Portugal, no. 24678/06 and others, § 14, 13 July 2010; and Sancho Cruz and 14 other "Agrarian Reform" cases v. Portugal, no. 8851/07 and others, § 12, 18 January 2011).
• EKMR, 07.01.1991 - 14083/88

  ANDERSSON and others v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 23662/12

  First, in expropriation cases the Court's power of review is in any event limited to ascertaining whether the choice of compensation terms falls outside the State's margin of appreciation (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 54, Series A no. 98; Andersson v. Sweden, no. 14083/88, Commission decision of 7 January 1991, unpublished; and Grainger and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34940/10, ECHR 10 July 2012).
• EKMR, 13.01.1992 - 18809/91

  K. v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 21342/93

  E., I. AND M. v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 24678/06

  FERNANDES FORMIGAL DE ARRIAGA ET AUTRES AFFAIRES " RÉFORME AGRAIRE " c. PORTUGAL