Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALBERT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 5294/14
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 5294/14
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 5294/14

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 21.02.1986 - 8793/79

  JAMES ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 5294/14

  James and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 8793/79, § 37, Series A no. 98.
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 5294/14

  Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52.
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 31443/96

  BRONIOWSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 5294/14

  Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, § 89, ECHR 2000 XII, and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 176, ECHR 2004-V.

 
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 5294/14

  Ibid., § 27. The Court made specific reference to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222.
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 5294/14

  Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 39, Series A no. 296-A.
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 35178/97

  ANKARCRONA c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 5294/14

  As regards the impugned legislative provisions allowing for measures to be taken against Kinizsi Bank and Mohácsi Bank, it cannot be ignored that the applicants fall short of holding 100% shares in the respective banks (see paragraph 8 above) and are thus not the "sole" owners of the companies in question (see, by contrast, Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, 27 June 2000, and Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, § 40, ECHR 2007).
• EGMR, 21.12.2017 - 42758/05

  FELDMAN AND SLOVYANSKYY BANK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 5294/14

  Such exceptions could be accepted when it is clearly established that it was impossible for the company to apply to the Convention institutions through the organs set up under its articles of incorporation or, in the event of liquidation, through its liquidators (see Agrotexim and Others, cited above, § 66; Credit and Industrial Bank v. the Czech Republic, no. 29010/95, §§ 50 to 52, ECHR 2003-XI (extracts); and Feldman and Slovyanskyy Bank v. Ukraine, no. 42758/05, §§ 28 and 29, 21 December 2017); where the acts or decisions complained of related to the actions of persons such as a liquidator acting on the company's behalf (see G.J. v. Luxembourg, no. 21156/93, § 24, 26 October 2000); or where the measures complained of consisted of the cancellation of shares belonging to the applicant and were directly aimed at the applicant's rights as a shareholder (see Olczak, cited above, § 58).