Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALBERGAS AND ARLAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALBERGAS ET ARLAUSKAS c. LITUANIE

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Protection de la propriété (article 1 al. 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Respect des biens) (französisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ARLAUSKAS AND ALBERGAS v. LITHUANIA and 8 other applications

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Zitiert selbst (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 17978/05

  In addition, if one or more heads of damage cannot be calculated precisely or if the distinction between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage proves difficult, the Court may decide to make a global assessment (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 46129/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 17978/05

  In this connection, the Court has already found that the taking of property without payment of an amount reasonably related to its value will normally constitute a disproportionate interference (see The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 71, Series A no. 301-A; Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-XII; Zvolský and Zvolská v. the Czech Republic, no. 46129/99, § 70, ECHR 2002-IX; and, Vistins and Perepjolkins, cited above, § 110).
• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 29979/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 17978/05

  It requires that where an issue pertaining to the general interest is at stake, especially when it affects fundamental human rights, including property rights, the public authorities must act promptly and in an appropriate and above all consistent manner (see Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 120, ECHR 2000-I, and Rysovskyy v. Ukraine, no. 29979/04, § 71, 20 October 2011).

• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 1471/05

  NEKVEDAVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 17978/05

  In the Court's view, although it is true that the State faces complex legal and factual issues when resolving such questions, in the present case the hindrance to the peaceful enjoyment of the property is attributable exclusively to the respondent State, and the existence of any justifying exceptional circumstances has not been demonstrated by the Government (see, Nekvedavicius v. Lithuania, no. 1471/05, § 88, 10 December 2013).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 17978/05

  The requisite balance will not be struck where the person concerned bears an individual and excessive burden (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69-74, Series A no. 52; and Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 78, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 7097/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 17978/05

  In other words, the risk of any mistake made by the State authority must be borne by the State, and errors must not be remedied at the expense of the individual concerned (see Gladysheva v. Russia, no. 7097/10, § 80, 6 December 2011; and Pyrantiene, cited above, § 70).
• LG Bonn, 25.09.2008 - 27 Qs 5/08

  Rechtmäßigkeit einer Durchsuchung von Geschäftsräumen aufgrund des Verdachts …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 17978/05

  27/08/2014.
• EGMR, 15.03.2007 - 43278/98

  VELIKOVI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 17978/05

  On several occasions in similar cases that concerned, as in the present case, the correction of mistakes made by the State authorities in the process of restitution, the Court has emphasised the necessity of ensuring that the remedying of old injuries does not create disproportionate new wrongs (see Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, § 178, 15 March 2007).
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 48380/99

  TODOROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 17978/05

  On several occasions in similar cases that concerned, as in the present case, the correction of mistakes made by the State authorities in the process of restitution, the Court has emphasised the necessity of ensuring that the remedying of old injuries does not create disproportionate new wrongs (see Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, § 178, 15 March 2007).
• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 51362/99

  ENEVA AND DOBREV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 17978/05

  On several occasions in similar cases that concerned, as in the present case, the correction of mistakes made by the State authorities in the process of restitution, the Court has emphasised the necessity of ensuring that the remedying of old injuries does not create disproportionate new wrongs (see Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, § 178, 15 March 2007).
• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 194/02

  NIKOLOVI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 73465/01

  TZILEVI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 7352/03

  BESHIRI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 53367/99

  STOYANOVA AND IVANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 15568/08

  VAINORIUS v. LITHUANIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 49426/09

  MISIUKONIS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  For other relevant domestic courts' practice, see Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania, no. 17978/05, §§ 32-33, 27 May 2014.

  While taking note of the domestic courts' conclusions that ignorance of the law does not absolve anyone of responsibility (see Article 7 of the Constitution, quoted in paragraph 31 above), and that in the restoration process the applicants had consulted a land specialist E.K., the Court nonetheless does not see sufficiently strong reasons to find that the applicants should have questioned the actions of competent public authorities instead of expecting the latter to take all measures to avoid mistakes in application of legislation - especially taking into account the complexity and technical nature of legal acts governing the process of restoration of land titles (see, mutatis mutandis, Gladysheva, cited above, §§ 79-80, and Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania, no. 17978/05, §§ 62 and 67-68, 27 May 2014).

• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 70520/10

  BEINAROVIC AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  For relevant domestic practice as to the principles of restoration of property rights in Lithuania, see Jasiūnienė v. Lithuania (no. 41510/98, § 22, 6 March 2003), Igarienė and Petrauskienė v. Lithuania (no. 26892/05, §§ 24-25, 21 July 2009), Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania (no. 17978/05, §§ 26-33, 27 May 2014), and Paukštis v. Lithuania (no. 17467/07, §§ 40-41 and 46-48, 24 November 2015).

  The applicants were ordinary citizens who participated in the restitution process under the same conditions as everyone else; they were not in a privileged position and there are no grounds to find that they acted unlawfully when obtaining their property (see also Pyrantienė, cited above, § 59, and Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania, no. 17978/05, § 68, 27 May 2014).

• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 42322/09

  GRIGALIUNIENE v. LITHUANIA

  For relevant domestic law and practice, see Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania (no. 17978/05, §§ 21-33, 27 May 2014).

  The Court refers to its findings in the cases of Pyrantienė v. Lithuania (no. 45092/07, § 27, 12 November 2013) and Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania (no. 17978/05, § 44, 27 May 2014), where it was not demonstrated that at the time the application was lodged with the Court, a claim under Article 6.271 of the Civil Code would have been an effective remedy with any prospect of success (see, mutatis mutandis, Beshiri and Others v. Albania, no. 7352/03, § 55, 22 August 2006).

• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 33636/09

  [ENG]

  La Cour rappelle à cet égard que le risque de toute erreur de la part d'une autorité publique doit être supporté par l'État, spécialement quand aucun autre intérêt privé n'est en jeu, et qu'aucune erreur ne doit être réparée au détriment de la personne concernée (voir, mutatis mutandis, Radchikov c. Russie, no 65582/01, § 50, 24 mai 2007, Gashi c. Croatie, no 32457/05, § 40, 13 décembre 2007, et Albergas et Arlauskas c. Lituanie, no 17978/05, § 59, 27 mai 2014).
• EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 43730/07

  [FRE]

  En d'autres termes, le risque de toute erreur de la part d'une autorité publique doit être supporté par l'État et aucune erreur ne doit être réparée au détriment de la personne concernée (Gashi c. Croatie, no 32457/05, § 40, 13 décembre 2007 ; Gladysheva c. Russie, no 7097/10, § 80, 6 décembre 2011 ; Pyrantienė c. Lituanie, no 45092/07, § 70, 12 novembre 2013 ; Marija Božić c. Croatie, no 50636/09, § 56, 24 avril 2014 ; Šimecki c. Croatie, no 15253/10, § 46, 30 avril 2014, et Albergas et Arlauskas c. Lituanie, no 17978/05, § 59, 27 mai 2014).
• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 17467/07

  PAUKSTIS v. LITHUANIA

  In other words, the terms of compensation are material to the assessment of whether the contested measure respects the requisite fair balance and, notably, whether it imposes a disproportionate burden on the applicant (see Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania, no. 17978/05, § 73, 27 May 2014).
• EGMR, 04.05.2017 - 39210/07

  OSIPKOVS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  In view of the documents before it, there is no reason for the Court to reach a different conclusion on the characteristics of the applicants' conduct (see to the contrary Albergas and Alrauskas v. Lithuania, no. 17978/05, §§ 66-67, 27 May 2014).
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 25082/05

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates that it is for the domestic authorities to establish that an applicant has not acted in good faith (see Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania, no. 17978/05, § 67, 27 May 2014).
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 51755/10

  SIDLAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA

  The Court reiterates that, according to its established case-law reflecting a principle linked to the proper administration of justice, judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based (see Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania, no. 17978/05, § 67, 27 May 2014, and Paliutis v. Lithuania, no. 34085/09, § 45, 24 November 2015; see also the relevant practice of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court in paragraph 28 above).
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 58166/18

  PUISYS v. LITHUANIA

  Furthermore, it has not been alleged at any point, either during the domestic proceedings or during the proceedings before the Court, that the applicant acted unlawfully when obtaining the relevant permits or that he in any other way contributed to the adoption of the decisions which were subsequently annulled for being unlawful (see Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania, no. 17978/05, § 68, 27 May 2014).
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 25545/14

  TUMELIS AND TUMELIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 18.04.2017 - 2657/10

  VALANCIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 55056/10

  SIMAITIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 53099/10

  KARPOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 32997/14

  PALEVICIUTÄ- AND DZIDZEVICIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 13.04.2016 - 45092/07

  PYRANTIENE AND 3 OTHER CASES AGAINST LITHUANIA
• EGMR - 18054/12 (anhängig)

  VASILEVSKA AND BARTOSEVIC v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 69419/13

  CINGA v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 51752/10

  KAVALIAUSKAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 02.04.2019 - 66803/17

  MOZERIS AND EUGENIJOS IR LEONIDO PIMONOV?² ALZHEIMERIO LIGOS PARAMOS FONDAS v. …