Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  D.P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 14+6, Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  D.P. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 14+6, Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)

• EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 27866/95

  MARKKULA v. FINLAND

  Furthermore, the Commission has recognised that the procedural guarantees of Article 6 (Art. 6) take precedence over those of Article 13 (Art. 13) where a "civil right" is at issue, because the guarantees of this Article are more rigorous than those of Article 13 (Art. 13) (see e.g. No. 11949/86, Dec. 1.12.86, D.R. 51, p. 195).

  Property transfers which take place in the context of the settlement of relations between individuals do not normally amount to deprivation of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 (Art. 1), notwithstanding the fact that the State through its courts may have provided a forum for such a settlement (see No. 8588/79 & 8589/79, Dec. 12.10.82, D.R. 29, p. 64 and No. 11949/86, Dec. 1.12.86, D.R. 51, p. 195).

• EGMR, 13.05.2008 - 19009/04

  McCANN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Les juges majoritaires citèrent diversement certaines décisions par lesquelles la Commission avait déclaré manifestement mal fondés des griefs similaires, ayant pour objet l'éviction d'anciens locataires indivis de logements sociaux une fois leur bail résilié (S. c. Royaume-Uni, no 11716/85, décision de la Commission du 14 mai 1986, Décisions et rapports (DR) 47, p. 280, D.P. c. Royaume-Uni, no 11949/86, décision de la Commission du 1er décembre 1986, DR 51, p. 214, Ure c. Royaume-Uni, no 28027/95, décision de la Commission du 27 novembre 1996, non publiée, et Wood c. Royaume-Uni, no 32540/96, décision de la Commission du 2 juillet 1997, non publiée).
• EKMR, 27.02.1997 - 29989/96

  BEKERT v. AUSTRIA

  The Commission recalls that the mere fact that an individual was the unsuccessful party to private litigation concerning the possession or ownership of a thing is not sufficient to engage State responsibility for an alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (No. 11949/86, Dec. 1.12.86, D.R. 51, p. 195).

 
• EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 28027/95

  URE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Commission's task is to examine whether the reasons adduced to justify the interference at issue are "relevant and sufficient" (Eur. Court HR, Olsson v. Sweden judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p. 32, paras. 59, 67, 68; cf. also no. 11949/86, Dec. 1.12.86, D.R. 51 p. 195).
• EKMR, 29.06.1994 - 19790/92

  LÖWA WARENHANDEL GESMBH v. AUSTRIA

  The Commission recalls that the mere fact that an individual was the unsuccessful party to private litigation concerning his civil rights and obligations does not appear to be sufficient to engage state responsibility for an alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (No. 11949/86, Dec. 1.12.86, D.R. 51 p. 195, at p. 211).
• EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 30143/96

  ESTATE OF EDUARD IV HAAS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The Commission therefore considers that in view of the domestic courts' finding that the applicant did not own the company in Liberec there has been no interference with the applicant's rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) as interpreted by the Convention organs (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Lithgow and Others judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 46, para. 106, with further references, and, mutatis mutandis, No. 11949/86, Dec. 1.12.86, D.R. 51, pp. 195, 211).