Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FUTRO v. POLAND

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 51832/99
• EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 51832/99

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 51832/99

  The Court further recalls that, according to the established case-law of the Convention organs, "possessions" can be either "existing possessions" (see the Van der Mussele v. Belgium judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48) or assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right (see the Pine Valley Developments Ltd. and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51, and the Pressos Companía Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31).
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 51832/99

  The Court further recalls that, according to the established case-law of the Convention organs, "possessions" can be either "existing possessions" (see the Van der Mussele v. Belgium judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48) or assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right (see the Pine Valley Developments Ltd. and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51, and the Pressos Companía Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 51832/99

  The Court further recalls that, according to the established case-law of the Convention organs, "possessions" can be either "existing possessions" (see the Van der Mussele v. Belgium judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48) or assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right (see the Pine Valley Developments Ltd. and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51, and the Pressos Companía Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31).

• EKMR, 04.03.1996 - 19048/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 51832/99

  Furthermore, the hope of recognition of the survival of an old property right which it has long been impossible to exercise effectively cannot be considered as a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Mayer and Others v. Germany, applications nos. 18890/91, 19048/91, 19049/91, 19342/92 and 19549/92, Commission decision of 4 March 1996, DR 85, p. 18).
• EKMR, 17.05.1996 - 25497/94

  LUPULET contre la ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 51832/99

  In so far as this complaint raises an issue separate from that under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court recalls that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 aims at securing the peaceful enjoyment of existing possessions and that it does not guarantee a right to acquire property nor a right to restitution of property (see Rucińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 33752/96, 27 January 2000, unpublished, and, mutatis mutandis, Lupulet v. Romania, application no. 25497/94, Commission decision of 17 May 1996, Decisions and Reports (DR) 85, p. 133).
• EGMR, 27.01.2000 - 33752/96

  RUCINSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 51832/99

  In so far as this complaint raises an issue separate from that under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court recalls that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 aims at securing the peaceful enjoyment of existing possessions and that it does not guarantee a right to acquire property nor a right to restitution of property (see Rucińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 33752/96, 27 January 2000, unpublished, and, mutatis mutandis, Lupulet v. Romania, application no. 25497/94, Commission decision of 17 May 1996, Decisions and Reports (DR) 85, p. 133).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen