Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZAMMIT AND ATTARD CASSAR v. MALTA

  Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZAMMIT AND ATTARD CASSAR v. MALTA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ZAMMIT AND ATTARD CASSAR v. MALTA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (27)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10522/83

  Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2015 - 1046/12

  In their view, this also transpired from the Court's case law (Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169; Pincová and Pinc v. the Czech Republic, no. 36548/97, ECHR 2002-VIII, and James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2015 - 1046/12

  Uncertainty - be it legislative, administrative or arising from practices applied by the authorities - is a factor to be taken into account in assessing the State's conduct (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 54, ECHR 1999-V, and Broniowski, cited above, § 151).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2015 - 1046/12

  In their view, this also transpired from the Court's case law (Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169; Pincová and Pinc v. the Czech Republic, no. 36548/97, ECHR 2002-VIII, and James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98).
• EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 36548/97

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2015 - 1046/12

  In their view, this also transpired from the Court's case law (Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169; Pincová and Pinc v. the Czech Republic, no. 36548/97, ECHR 2002-VIII, and James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 23646/09

  Keine Verletzung von Art. 11 EMRK (Recht auf Versammlungsfreiheit)

  Malta, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 1046/12, Rdnr. 47, 30.
• VGH Baden-Württemberg, 19.02.2014 - A 3 S 2023/12

  Anforderungen an die Asylrechtsgewährung für Konvertiten zum christlichen Glauben

  Rn. 3 Die hiergegen von der Klägerin erhobene Klage hat das Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe mit Urteil vom 9.8.2012 - A 6 K 1046/12 - abgewiesen.
• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 79177/16

  MARSHALL v. MALTA

  The relevant provision of the Reletting of Urban Property (Regulation) Ordinance, Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta, enacted in June 1931 and subsequently amended, and those of the Civil Code, Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta, as amended in 2009, are set out in Zammit and Attard Cassar v. Malta (no. 1046/12, §§ 26-27, 30 July 2015).

  In addition, the Court observes that while the overall measure may be in the general interest, the fact that there also exists an underlying private interest of a commercial nature cannot be disregarded (see, mutatis mutandis, Zammit and Attard Cassar v. Malta, no. 1046/12, § 63, 30 July 2015, and Bradshaw and Others v. Malta, no. 37121/15, § 64, 23 October 2018).

• EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 47505/19

  APAP BOLOGNA v. MALTA

  The relevant provision of the Reletting of Urban Property (Regulation) Ordinance, Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta, enacted in June 1931 and subsequently amended, and those of the Civil Code, Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta, as amended in 2009, are set out in Zammit and Attard Cassar v. Malta (no. 1046/12, §§ 26-27, 30 July 2015).

  The Court refers to its general principles and their application as set out, for example, in Zammit and Attard Cassar v. Malta (no. 1046/12, §§ 47-66, 30 July 2015).

• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 165/17

  ELLIS AND SCILIO v. MALTA

  The relevant domestic law in relation to the present case is set out in Zammit and Attard Cassar v. Malta (no. 1046/12, §§ 26-27, 30 July 2015) and Montanaro Gauci and Others v. Malta (no. 31454/12, §§ 31 and 34-36, 30 August 2016).

  Further, the Court notes that it has already held, in similar circumstances, that, at the time, the owners (ancestors of the applicants) could not reasonably have had a clear idea of the extent of inflation in property prices in the decades to come, and that the decisions of the domestic courts regarding their request challenging such laws constituted interference in the applicants' (heirs) respect (see, mutatis mutandis, Zammit and Attard Cassar, v. Malta, no. 1046/12, §§ 50-51, 30 July 2015).

• EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 48921/13

  CAKAREVIC v. CROATIA

  It must look behind appearances and investigate the realities of the situation complained of (see Broniowski, cited above, § 151; Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, § 168, ECHR 2006-VIII; and Zammit and Attard Cassar v. Malta, no. 1046/12, § 57, 30 July 2015).
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 72152/13

  CINDRIC AND BESLIC v. CROATIA

  It must look behind appearances and investigate the realities of the situation complained of (see Zammit and Attard Cassar v. Malta, no. 1046/12, § 57, 30 July 2015).
• EGMR - 55747/16 (anhängig)

  PORTANIER v. MALTA

  The applicant's wife having passed away pending proceedings, the applicant appealed, relying on Zammit and Attard Cassar v. Malta, (no. 1046/12, 30 July 2015).
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 22008/20

  AZZOPARDI v. MALTA

  As the Court has previously stated in the Maltese property context, applicant's or their ancestors could not, in the 1970s and 80s, have foreseen the extent of inflation in property prices in the decades that followed (see, for example, Zammit and Attard Cassar v. Malta, no. 1046/12, § 50, 30 July 2015, and Cassar v. Malta, no. 50570/13, § 48, 30 January 2018, concerning decisions taken in 1971 and 1988 respectively).
• EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 24827/14

  FU QUAN, S.R.O. c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  In order for an interference to be compatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 it must be lawful, be in the general interest and be proportionate, that is, it must strike a "fair balance" between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see, among many other authorities, Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 107, ECHR 2000-I, and Zammit and Attard Cassar v. Malta, no. 1046/12, § 47, 30 July 2015).
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 50101/12

  BIKIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 2317/20

  THE KARIBU FOUNDATION v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 31454/12

  MONTANARO GAUCI AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 12.12.2019 - 32141/10

  ROMEVA v. 'THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
• EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 20064/21

  DEGUARA CARUANA GATTO AND GERA v. MALTA
• LSG Baden-Württemberg, 28.01.2013 - L 2 SF 3790/12
• EGMR, 22.09.2022 - 38660/20

  GRIMA v. MALTA
• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 19465/20

  GERA DE PETRI TESTAFERRATA v. MALTA
• EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 29964/18

  MONTANARO AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 37121/15

  BRADSHAW AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 50570/13

  CASSAR v. MALTA
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 6335/21

  CACHIA AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 62978/15

  GRECH AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR - 24092/25 (anhängig)

  FUSCO v. MALTA
• EGMR, 09.06.2020 - 40246/18

  AQUILINA v. MALTA
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 22456/15

  BUTTIGIEG AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 62964/14

  MINTER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM