Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SKRZYNSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of P1-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Zitiert selbst (23)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 52589/99

  SKIBINSCY v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 38672/02

  Other relevant legislative provisions are extensively set out in the Court's judgment of 14 November 2006 in the case of Skibinscy v. Poland (no. 52589/99, §§ 28 - 53).

  The applicant referred to the Court's judgment given in the case of Skibinscy v. Poland (no. 52589/99, 14 November 2006) concerning a similar set of facts with the same legal background where the Court had been of the view that it had temporal jurisdiction to examine that case.

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 38672/02

  The applicant's situation was therefore different from that in the case of Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden (judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, § 11) in which the restrictions were imposed on the property in the centre of the capital.
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94

  Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 38672/02

  It is of the view that the breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 caused the applicant distress and frustration on account of the prolonged precariousness of his ownership of his property, which the mere finding of a violation cannot adequately compensate (see, for example, Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, §§ 70-71, ECHR 2000-VIII; Schirmer v. Poland, cited above).

• EGMR, 18.01.2001 - 27238/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 38672/02

  This corresponds to the general interest of the community (see, mutatis mutandis, Cooperativa La Laurentina v. Italy, no. 23529/94, § 94, 2 August 2001; Bahia Nova S.A. (dec.), no. 50924/99, 12 December 2000; and Chapman v. the United Kingdom, no. 27238/95, § 82, ECHR 2001-I).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 38672/02

  Hence, the present case was different from the situation in which the Court had found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the case Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy ([GC], no. 22774/93, ECHR 1999-V) in that the applicant could freely enjoy his ownership.
• EGMR, 15.05.2003 - 72203/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 38672/02

  The Court must examine in particular whether an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions strikes the requisite fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the public and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights, or whether it imposes a disproportionate and excessive burden on the applicant (see, among many other authorities, Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos. 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01, § 93, ECHR 2005-VI).
• EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 37710/97

  ELIA SRL AGAINST ITALY AND 2 OTHER CASES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 38672/02

  Under the system of protection established by the Convention, it is thus for the national authorities to make the initial assessment as to the existence of a problem of public concern warranting measures interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see Terazzi S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 27265/95, § 85, 17 October 2002, and Elia S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 37710/97, § 77, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 05.12.2000 - 39615/98

  MOTIERE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 38672/02

  The applicant did not seek reimbursement of costs and expenses relating to the Convention proceedings and this is not a matter which the Court has to examine of its own motion (see Motière v. France, no. 39615/98, § 26, 5 December 2000).
• EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 27265/95

  TERAZZI S.R.L. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 38672/02

  Under the system of protection established by the Convention, it is thus for the national authorities to make the initial assessment as to the existence of a problem of public concern warranting measures interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see Terazzi S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 27265/95, § 85, 17 October 2002, and Elia S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 37710/97, § 77, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 22534/93

  A.O. v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 38672/02

  Having regard to its case-law in similar cases (see, among many other authorities, Eduardo Palumbo v. Italy, no. 15919/99, 10 November 2000, § 59, G.L. v. Italy, no. 22671/93, 3.08.2000, § 49; A.O. v. Italy, no. 22534/93, 30.05.2000, § 33) and ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 5, 000.
• EGMR, 03.08.2000 - 22671/93

  G.L. v. ITALY
• EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 50924/99

  BAHIA NOVA S.A. contre l'ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …
• EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

  ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
• EKMR, 08.09.1997 - 30229/96

  J. M.F. ET AUTRES contre le PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 47414/99

  SZOTT-MEDYNSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 29813/96

  ALMEIDA GARRETT, MASCARENHAS FALCAO AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 2428/05

  WYPYCH v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 17373/02

  ROSINSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 30337/96

  HILTUNEN v. FINLAND
• VGH der UEK, 05.05.1996 - 6/95

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.10.2013 - 52589/99

  SKIBINSCY ET 5 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  38672/02.

  Skrzynski, Application No. 38672/02, judgment of 06/09/2007, final on 06/12/2007.

  Skrzynski v. Poland, Case No. 38672/02.

• EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 27480/02

  TARNAWCZYK v. POLAND

  It found that it had jurisdiction to examine these cases in so far as they related to circumstances which originated in measures envisaging future expropriations, given before 10 October 1994, which subsequently had an impact on the applicants' ownership after that date (see Rosinski v. Poland, no. 17373/02, § 42-43, 17 July 2007, and Skrzynski v. Poland, no. 38672/02, § 45, 6 September 2007).

  Accordingly, the interference falls to be examined under the first sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, e.g., Skibinscy v. Poland, no. 52589/99, 14 November 2006; Skrzynski v. Poland, no. 38672/02, 6 September 2007; Buczkiewicz v. Poland, no. 10446/03, 26 February 2008; and Pietrzak v. Poland, no. 38185/02, 8 January 2008).

• EGMR, 08.09.2026 - 16430/22
  They did not raise any additional issues, such as the absence of compensation (contrast Skrzyński v. Poland, no. 38672/02, § 45, 6 September 2007, and Buczkiewicz v. Poland, no. 10446/03, § 40, 26 February 2008).

• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32794/07

  [ENG]

  Against the background of various measures adopted before 10 October 1994 whose results continued to affect an applicant's situation after that date, the Court has already examined the scope of its temporal jurisdiction in the context of cases against Poland concerning various restrictions on the effective enjoyment of an applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and found that it had jurisdiction to examine such cases (see, for instance, Hutten-Czapska v. Poland, cited above, §§ 147-153; Tarnawczyk v. Poland, no. 27480/02, §§ 62-66, 7 December 2010; Rosiński v. Poland, no. 17373/02, §§ 42-43, 17 July 2007; Skrzyński v. Poland, no. 38672/02, § 45, 6 September 2007; and Potomska and Potomski v. Poland, no. 33949/05, §§ 38-41, 29 March 2011).
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 33949/05

  [ENG]

  The Government submitted that if the Court had made an award, if any, under this head it should be comparable to awards for non-pecuniary damage in other similar cases against Poland in which it found a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Rosinski v. Poland, no. 17373/02, 17 July 2007; Skrzynski v. Poland, no. 38672/02, 6 September 2007; Buczkiewicz v. Poland, no. 10446/03, 26 February 2008; Skibinscy v. Poland (just satisfaction), no. 52589/99, 21 October 2008; Rosenzweig and Bonded Warehouses Ltd. v. Poland (just satisfaction), no. 51728/99, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 26.02.2008 - 10446/03

  BUCZKIEWICZ v. POLAND

  Their property rights thus became precarious (mutatis mutandis, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, cited above, §§ 58-60; Skibinscy v. Poland, no. 52589/99, 14 November 2006, § 79; Skrzynski v. Poland, no. 38672/02, 6 September 2007, § 74, Rosinski v. Poland, cited above, § 72).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 19145/08

  [FRE]

  A la lumière de ces considérations, la Cour estime que le requérant a eu à supporter une charge spéciale et exorbitante qui a rompu le juste équilibre devant régner entre, d'une part, les exigences de l'intérêt général et, d'autre part, la sauvegarde du droit au respect des biens (Sporrong et Lönnroth, précité, §§ 73 et 74 ; Erkner et Hofauer, précité, §§ 78 et 79 ; Elia, précité, § 83 ; Rossitto, précité, § 45 ; Skibinscy c. Pologne, no 52589/99, § 98, 14 novembre 2006 ; Skrzynski c. Pologne, no 38672/02, § 92, 6 septembre 2007 ; Rosinski c. Pologne, no 17373/02, § 89, 17 juillet 2007 ; Buczkiewicz c. Pologne, no 10446/03, § 77, 26 février 2008 ; Pietrzak c. Pologne, no 38185/02, § 115, 8 janvier 2008, et Hakan Arı, précité, § 47).
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 49893/07

  CRASH 2000 OOD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In this regard also the Court finds that the circumstances of the present case are clearly distinct from the ones in the cases of Pine Valley and Stretch (see paragraph 55 above) and in a series of cases against Poland (see Skibinscy v. Poland, no. 52589/99, 14 November 2006; Rosinski v. Poland, no. 17373/02, 17 July 2007; Skrzynski v. Poland, no. 38672/02, 6 September 2007; Pietrzak v. Poland, no. 38185/02, 8 January 2008 and Buczkiewicz v. Poland, no. 10446/03, 26 February 2008), in which the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention where long-standing owners of plots of land were adversely affected by subsequently adopted local development plans.
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 52589/99

  SKIBINSCY v. POLAND

  The Court reiterates that it has found in a number of cases concerning similar factual and legal situations that applicants who only claimed non-pecuniary damages had sustained such damage on account of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Rosinski v. Poland, no. 17373/02, 17 July 2007; Skrzynski v. Poland, no. 38672/02, 6 September 2007; and Buczkiewicz v. Poland, no. 10446/03, 26 February 2008).
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 22665/02

  LACZ v. POLAND

  In this respect it recalls that in a series of cases against Poland (Skibinscy v. Poland, no. 52589/99, 14 November 2006; Rosinski v. Poland, no. 17373/02, 17 July 2007; Skrzynski v. Poland, no. 38672/02, 6 September 2007; Pietrzak v. Poland, no. 38185/02, 8 January 2008 and Buczkiewicz v. Poland, no. 10446/03, 26 February 2008) it found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention where long-standing owners of plots of land were adversely affected by the old local development plans which had stipulated that their properties were to be expropriated at some undetermined future date, while at the same time the owners did not have any effective entitlement to compensation.
• EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 24508/09

  KAPLAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 03.02.2015 - 16572/13

  WILCZYNSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.07.2011 - 18290/02

  MAIOLI c. ITALIE