Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZAMMIT AND VASSALLO v. MALTA

  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)

  ZAMMIT AND VASSALLO v. MALTA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 43675/16

  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, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06

  AMATO GAUCI v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 43675/16

  Indeed, the Court has on various occasions held that legislation regarding controlled rents in Malta was in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Ghigo v. Malta, no. 31122/05, §§ 69-70, 26 September 2006; Edwards v. Malta, no. 17647/04, §§ 78-79, 24 October 2006; Fleri Soler and Camilleri v. Malta, no. 35349/05, §§ 79-80, ECHR 2006-X; and Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 62, 15 September 2009).
• EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 17647/04

  EDWARDS v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 43675/16

  Indeed, the Court has on various occasions held that legislation regarding controlled rents in Malta was in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Ghigo v. Malta, no. 31122/05, §§ 69-70, 26 September 2006; Edwards v. Malta, no. 17647/04, §§ 78-79, 24 October 2006; Fleri Soler and Camilleri v. Malta, no. 35349/05, §§ 79-80, ECHR 2006-X; and Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 62, 15 September 2009).

 
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 43675/16

  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, 06.09.2016 - 26771/07

  GERA DE PETRI TESTAFERRATA BONICI GHAXAQ AGAINST MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 43675/16

  The Court reiterates that an applicant is deprived of his or her status as a victim if the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for a breach of the Convention (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-193, ECHR 2006-V; Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq v. Malta, no. 26771/07, § 50, 5 April 2011; and Frendo Randon and Others v. Malta, no. 2226/10, § 34, 22 November 2011).
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 42583/06

  SCHEMBRI AND OTHERS AND 5 OTHER CASES AGAINST MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 43675/16

  The Court reiterates that an applicant is deprived of his or her status as a victim if the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for a breach of the Convention (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-193, ECHR 2006-V; Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq v. Malta, no. 26771/07, § 50, 5 April 2011; and Frendo Randon and Others v. Malta, no. 2226/10, § 34, 22 November 2011).

• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 37474/21

  CHEMEL AND TABONE v. MALTA

  The Court further notes that it is true that the Court has sometimes found that the sums awarded in compensation did not constitute adequate redress because applicants were burdened with an order for the payment of the relevant costs (see, for example, Edward and Cynthia Zammit Maempel v. Malta, no. 3356/15, § 72, 15 January 2019, and Zammit and Vassallo v. Malta, no. 43675/16, § 42, 28 May 2019).
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 34562/20

  SAID v. MALTA

  49378/18 and 3 others, § 48, 24 March 2020) for the violation until 2018, despite an order to pay a small part of costs at the appeal stage (see, a contrario, Zammit and Vassallo v. Malta, no. 43675/16, § 42, 28 May 2019, and Portanier v. Malta, no. 55747/16, § 24, 27 August 2019).