Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 17060/15

The nature and the scope of the positive obligations vary, depending on the circumstances (Kursun v. Turkey, no. 22677/10, § 114, 30 October 2018).

While it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of the domestic law, the Court must however verify compatibility with the Convention of the effects of such an interpretation, and in particular whether that interpretation was made in a foreseeable and reasonable manner, without constituting a bar to the applicant company's effective access to court (see, mutatis mutandis, Kursun v. Turkey, no. 22677/10, § 95, 30 October 2018).

Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 17060/15

The relevant provisions concerning tort actions and the general statute of limitations are described in Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase v. Romania ([GC], no. 41720/13, §§ 68-69, 25 June 2019).

This failure to engage with the Government's submissions on the relevant domestic law is further exacerbated by the fact that it appears to us that the Government's assertions are very much in line with the summary of the relevant law as set out in Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase v. Romania ([GC], no. 41720/13, §§ 68-70, 25 June 2019 and, at least partly, adopted by the judgment in this case (§ 35):.

Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 17060/15

Therefore, in the Court's view, the applicant company could be considered to have a "legitimate expectation" that its claim would be dealt with in accordance with the applicable laws and that it would be able to obtain reimbursement of the disputed sum (see, for instance and mutatis mutandis, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332, and S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-III).

Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 17060/15

Therefore, in the Court's view, the applicant company could be considered to have a "legitimate expectation" that its claim would be dealt with in accordance with the applicable laws and that it would be able to obtain reimbursement of the disputed sum (see, for instance and mutatis mutandis, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332, and S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-III).

Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 17060/15

Where the proprietary interest takes the form of a claim, the Court has taken the view that it may be regarded as an "asset" only where it has a sufficient basis in domestic law, or where the applicants had "a claim which was sufficiently established to be enforceable", or where the persons concerned were entitled to rely on the fact that a specific legal act would not be retrospectively invalidated to their detriment and where such legal acts could consist of a contract, for example (see Kurban v. Turkey, no. 75414/10, § 63, 24 November 2020, and the cases cited therein).