Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HARRACH v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 77532/01
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 77532/01

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 77532/01

  The Court's role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of such an interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kopp v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, p. 54, § 59, and Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97, 44801/98, § 49, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 33071/96

  MALHOUS c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 77532/01

  In these circumstances, the Court is not satisfied that the applicant's claim related to "existing possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, ECHR 2002-VII, and Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII), or that the applicant had at least a "legitimate expectation" of having his restoration claim upheld and enforced in the context of the proceedings of which complaint was made.
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 77532/01

  In these circumstances, the Court is not satisfied that the applicant's claim related to "existing possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, ECHR 2002-VII, and Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII), or that the applicant had at least a "legitimate expectation" of having his restoration claim upheld and enforced in the context of the proceedings of which complaint was made.
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 77532/01

  The Convention institutions have consistently held that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be either "existing possessions" or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised (see the recapitulation of the relevant case-law in, for example, Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II; Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31; and Ouzounis and Others v. Greece, no. 49144/99, § 24, 18 April 2002, unreported).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 77532/01

  The Convention institutions have consistently held that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be either "existing possessions" or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised (see the recapitulation of the relevant case-law in, for example, Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II; Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31; and Ouzounis and Others v. Greece, no. 49144/99, § 24, 18 April 2002, unreported).

• BVerfG, 26.10.2004 - 2 BvR 955/00

  Bodenreform III

  In den Fällen Walderode (EGMR, Nr. 40057/98, Urteil vom 4. März 2003) und Harrach (EGMR, Nr. 77532/01, Beschluss vom 27. Mai 2003) ging es um Grundstücke ehemaliger deutscher Staatsangehöriger, die auf der Grundlage der Benes-Dekrete enteignet wurden; in dem Fall Gratzinger (EGMR, Nr. 39794/98, Urteil vom 10. Juli 2002) war die Enteignung eines aus der Tschechoslowakei geflohenen Ehepaars Gegenstand des Verfahrens.