Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LACZ v. POLAND

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 22665/02

  Being aware of the fact that their property was encumbered with restrictions when they bought it, the applicants cannot hold that circumstance against the authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, § 60-62, Series A no. 163, and Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 54, Series A no. 192).
• EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

  ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 22665/02

  Being aware of the fact that their property was encumbered with restrictions when they bought it, the applicants cannot hold that circumstance against the authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, § 60-62, Series A no. 163, and Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 54, Series A no. 192).

• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 32377/12

  WERRA NATURSTEIN GMBH & CO KG v. GERMANY

  In der Rechtssache Lacz (siehe Lacz./. Polen (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 22665/02, 23. Juni 2009) waren dem Kaufvertrag relevante Auszüge aus dem lokalen Entwicklungsplan bezüglich des Straßenbaus beigefügt.
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32794/07

  MATCZYNSKI v. POLAND

  Consideration must be given in particular to the question of whether the applicant, on acquiring the property, knew - or should have reasonably known - about the restrictions on the property, or possible future restrictions (see Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, §§ 60-61, Series A no. 163, and Lacz v. Poland (dec.), no. 22665/02, 23 June 2009), the existence of legitimate expectations with respect to the use of the property or acceptance of the risk on purchase (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 54, Series A no. 192), the extent to which the restriction prevented use of the property (see Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, 27 October 1994, § 46, Series A no. 293-B, and SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)) and the possibility of challenging the need for the restriction (see Phocas v. France, 23 April 1996, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, and Papastavrou and Others v. Greece, no. 46372/99, § 37, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 06.02.2018 - 23225/05

  CALANCEA ET AUTRES c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Compte tenu de cela et eu égard à la teneur du grief formulé devant elle, la Cour estime qu'il n'a pas été démontré qu'il y a eu ingérence dans les droits des requérants au respect de leurs biens (comparer avec Lacz c. Pologne (déc.), no 22665/02, 23 juin 2009).

 
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 33949/05

  POTOMSKA AND POTOMSKI v. POLAND

  Consideration must be given in particular to whether the applicant, on acquiring the property, knew or should have reasonably known about the restrictions on the property or about possible future restrictions (see Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, §§ 60-61, Series A no. 163; Lacz v. Poland (dec.), no. 22665/02, 23 June 2009), the existence of legitimate expectations with respect to the use of the property or acceptance of the risk on purchase (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 54, Series A no. 192), the extent to which the restriction prevented use of the property (see Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, 27 October 1994, § 46, Series A no. 293-B; SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), cited above), and the possibility of challenging the necessity of the restriction (see Phocas v. France, 23 April 1996, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II; Papastavrou and Others v. Greece, no. 46372/99, § 37, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 28416/19

  FEJZAGIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Thus, the applicant cannot hold that circumstance against the authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Lacz v. Poland (dec.), no. 22665/02, 23 June 2009, and Nobel v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 27126/11 and 3 other applications, § 39, 2 July 2013).
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 14862/07

  MAURIELLO c. ITALIE

  S'il n'appartient pas à la Cour de spéculer sur les raisons qui ont poussé la requérante à commencer à travailler à un âge trop avancé pour pouvoir obtenir le droit à la pension, elle estime qu'il est certain que la décision litigieuse n'a pas constitué une surprise et qu'elle était entièrement prévisible (mutatis mutandis, Lacz c. Pologne (déc.), no 22665/02, 23 juin 2009; Depalle c. France [GC], no 34044/02, § 86, CEDH 2010; Allan Jacobsson c. Suède (no 1), 25 octobre 1989, §§ 60-62, série A no 163 et Fredin c. Suède (no 1), 18 février 1991, § 54, série A no 192).
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 49893/07

  CRASH 2000 OOD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The applicant company does not allege that its land has been expropriated and it has been able at all times to use the property on the same conditions as when it bought it (see on that point Lacz v. Poland (dec.), no. 22665/02, 23 June 2009).
• EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 73105/12

  BERZINS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  Consideration must be given, in particular, to whether the applicant, on acquiring the property, knew or should have reasonably known about the restrictions on the property or about possible future restrictions (see Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, §§ 60-61, Series A no. 163, and ?�acz v. Poland (dec.), no. 22665/02, 23 June 2009), the existence of legitimate expectations with respect to the use of the property or acceptance of the risk on purchase (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 54, Series A no. 192), the extent to which the restriction prevented use of the property (see Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, 27 October 1994, § 46, Series A no. 293-B, and SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)), and the possibility of challenging the necessity of the restriction (see Phocas v. France, 23 April 1996, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, and Papastavrou and Others v. Greece, no. 46372/99, § 37, ECHR 2003-IV).