Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BERGER-KRALL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Admissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 14717/04
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 14717/04

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 43447/98

  SORIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 14717/04

  In any event, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 did not guarantee the right to acquire property (Soric v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43447/98, 16 March 2000; Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II; and Kopeckỳ v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35 (b), ECHR 2004-IX).

  The Government stressed that Article 8 of the Convention did not include the right to buy a home, but only protected a person's right to respect for his or her present home (see Soric v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43447/98, 16 March 2000).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 48335/99

  SANLES SANLES contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 14717/04

  In order for an applicant to be able to claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, he or she must be able to show that they have been directly affected by the impugned measure (see Sanles Sanles v. Spain (dec.), no. 48335/99, ECHR 2000-XI, with further references, and L.Z. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 27753/06, § 71, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 29515/95

  LARKOS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 14717/04

  The International Union of Tenants (hereinafter, the "IUT"), a non-governmental organisation whose headquarters are located in Stockholm, argued that a right to tenancy constituted a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Larkos v. Cyprus ([GC] no. 29515/95, ECHR 1999-I).

 
• EKMR, 12.01.1994 - 19217/91

  DURINI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 14717/04

  The Government objected that the applicants" complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as the right to reside in a real estate unit not owned by an applicant could not constitute a "possession" (they referred to J.L.S. v. Spain (dec.), no. 41917/98, ECHR 1999-V; Kozlovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50835/00, 23 November 2000; Kovalenok v. Latvia (dec.), no. 54264/00, 15 February 2001; H.F. v. Slovak Republic (dec.), no. 54797/00, 9 December 2003; Bunjevac v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 48775/09, 19 January 2006; and Gacesa v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43389/02, 1 April 2008; and also Durini v. Italy, no. 19217/91, Commission's decision of 12 January 1994).
• EGMR, 27.04.1999 - 41917/98

  J.L.S. contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 14717/04

  The Government objected that the applicants" complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as the right to reside in a real estate unit not owned by an applicant could not constitute a "possession" (they referred to J.L.S. v. Spain (dec.), no. 41917/98, ECHR 1999-V; Kozlovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50835/00, 23 November 2000; Kovalenok v. Latvia (dec.), no. 54264/00, 15 February 2001; H.F. v. Slovak Republic (dec.), no. 54797/00, 9 December 2003; Bunjevac v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 48775/09, 19 January 2006; and Gacesa v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43389/02, 1 April 2008; and also Durini v. Italy, no. 19217/91, Commission's decision of 12 January 1994).
• EGMR, 15.02.2001 - 54264/00

  KOVALENOK contre la LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 14717/04

  The Government objected that the applicants" complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as the right to reside in a real estate unit not owned by an applicant could not constitute a "possession" (they referred to J.L.S. v. Spain (dec.), no. 41917/98, ECHR 1999-V; Kozlovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50835/00, 23 November 2000; Kovalenok v. Latvia (dec.), no. 54264/00, 15 February 2001; H.F. v. Slovak Republic (dec.), no. 54797/00, 9 December 2003; Bunjevac v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 48775/09, 19 January 2006; and Gacesa v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43389/02, 1 April 2008; and also Durini v. Italy, no. 19217/91, Commission's decision of 12 January 1994).
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 27753/06

  L.Z. v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 14717/04

  In order for an applicant to be able to claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, he or she must be able to show that they have been directly affected by the impugned measure (see Sanles Sanles v. Spain (dec.), no. 48335/99, ECHR 2000-XI, with further references, and L.Z. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 27753/06, § 71, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 23.11.2000 - 50835/00

  KOZLOVS contre la LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 14717/04

  The Government objected that the applicants" complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as the right to reside in a real estate unit not owned by an applicant could not constitute a "possession" (they referred to J.L.S. v. Spain (dec.), no. 41917/98, ECHR 1999-V; Kozlovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50835/00, 23 November 2000; Kovalenok v. Latvia (dec.), no. 54264/00, 15 February 2001; H.F. v. Slovak Republic (dec.), no. 54797/00, 9 December 2003; Bunjevac v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 48775/09, 19 January 2006; and Gacesa v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43389/02, 1 April 2008; and also Durini v. Italy, no. 19217/91, Commission's decision of 12 January 1994).