Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WYSZYNSKI v. POLAND

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  WYSZY?ƒSKI v. POLAND

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 66/12
• EGMR, 11.05.2023 - 66/12

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 31122/05

  GHIGO v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 66/12

  The measure in question amounted to a control of the use of property to be examined under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and with reference to the case-law concerning similar context (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 46, ECHR 1999-V; Ghigo v. Malta, no. 31122/05, § 50, 26 September 2006; and Kasmi v. Albania, no. 1175/06, § 72, 23 June 2020).
• EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 40031/98

  GNAHORE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 66/12

  The Court therefore considers that it should be examined under the substantive provision of the Convention relied upon by the applicant (see, in particular, Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32; Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 26, ECHR 2000-IX; and Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, § 161, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 66/12

  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, which reiterates in part the principles laid down by the Court in Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52; see also Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 134, ECHR 2004-V).

 
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 1175/06

  KASMI v. ALBANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 66/12

  The measure in question amounted to a control of the use of property to be examined under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and with reference to the case-law concerning similar context (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 46, ECHR 1999-V; Ghigo v. Malta, no. 31122/05, § 50, 26 September 2006; and Kasmi v. Albania, no. 1175/06, § 72, 23 June 2020).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 66/12

  The Court therefore considers that it should be examined under the substantive provision of the Convention relied upon by the applicant (see, in particular, Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32; Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 26, ECHR 2000-IX; and Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, § 161, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57950/00

  ISAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 66/12

  The Court therefore considers that it should be examined under the substantive provision of the Convention relied upon by the applicant (see, in particular, Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32; Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 26, ECHR 2000-IX; and Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, § 161, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 66/12

  The measure in question amounted to a control of the use of property to be examined under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and with reference to the case-law concerning similar context (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 46, ECHR 1999-V; Ghigo v. Malta, no. 31122/05, § 50, 26 September 2006; and Kasmi v. Albania, no. 1175/06, § 72, 23 June 2020).
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 14217/10

  STRZELECKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 66/12

  As regards the claim for damages against the municipality under section 18(5) of the 2001 Act read in conjunction with Article 417 of the Civil Code, the Court has already examined this remedy and found it effective in that it had enabled landlords to obtain compensation for losses incurred owing to the municipal authorities' failure to provide social housing to tenants (see Wasiewska v. Poland (dec.), no. 9873/11, § 31, 2 December 2014, and Strzelecka v. Poland (dec.), no. 14217/10, § 44, 2 December 2014).
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 9873/11

  WASIEWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 66/12

  As regards the claim for damages against the municipality under section 18(5) of the 2001 Act read in conjunction with Article 417 of the Civil Code, the Court has already examined this remedy and found it effective in that it had enabled landlords to obtain compensation for losses incurred owing to the municipal authorities' failure to provide social housing to tenants (see Wasiewska v. Poland (dec.), no. 9873/11, § 31, 2 December 2014, and Strzelecka v. Poland (dec.), no. 14217/10, § 44, 2 December 2014).
• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 10872/11

  KOLPACZEWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 66/12

  As regards the Government's second argument, the Court notes that in another similar case (see Kolpaczewska v. Poland (dec.), no. 10872/11, 6 December 2016) the Government argued that the claim against the tenant was not an effective remedy and that an applicant should claim compensation from the municipality.

• VG Saarlouis, 21.03.2012 - 10 K 67/12

  Asylrecht: Abschiebung; Gruppenverfolgung ethnische Minderheiten im Kosovo

  Durch Beschlüsse der Kammer vom 02.02.2012, 10 L 66/12 und 10 L 70/12, wurden Anträge des Klägers auf Erlass einstweiliger Anordnungen gemäß § 123 Abs. 1 VwGO zurückgewiesen.