Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PETLYOVANYY v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 54904/08

  Where a proprietary interest is in the nature of a claim, the person in whom it is vested may be regarded as having a "legitimate expectation" if there is a sufficient basis for the interest in national law, for example where there is settled case-law of the domestic courts confirming its existence (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 65, ECHR 2007-I, and Kopecký, cited above, § 52).
• EGMR, 30.08.2007 - 44302/02

  J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LTD ET J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LAND LTD c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 54904/08

  In particular, this provision does not guarantee the right to acquire property (see J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, § 61, ECHR 2007-I, and Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03

  MELNITCHOUK c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 54904/08

  As regards this complaint the Court notes that it is not its task to act as a court of appeal or, as is sometimes stated, as a court of fourth instance, in respect of the decisions taken by the domestic courts (see Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 04.10.2017 - 38677/06

  BUDCHENKO AGAINST UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 54904/08

  At the same time, in a situation where the lack of a procedure governing the payment of compensation was the only obstacle to a person's otherwise clear entitlement to a particular type of compensation under the law, the Court considered that such person could be said to have a claim sufficiently established to be enforceable and could validly claim its recovery against the State (ibid., §§ 64-68; see also Budchenko v. Ukraine, no. 38677/06, §§ 37-46, 24 April 2014).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.06.2024 - 41678/20

  FUTORNYAK v. UKRAINE

  On the basis of the above and referring to Budchenko v. Ukraine (no. 38677/06, § 42, 24 April 2014) and Petlyovanyy v. Ukraine ((dec.), no. 54904/08, 30 September 2014), the court concluded that no proprietary interest could be inferred from the domestic legislation in force at the material time and that the Anti-Terrorism Act did not give rise to a legitimate expectation that the State would have to provide compensation for the car destroyed during the ATO.
• EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 74663/17

  KOROTYUK v. UKRAINE

  However, because no law had been enacted implementing that provision, the applicant had not had a sufficiently established claim to compensation for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (they relied on Petlyovanyy v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 54904/08, 30 September 2014).
• EGMR, 16.01.2025 - 21725/15

  DELEYCHUK v. UKRAINE

  However, no legitimate expectation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was considered to arise from a legal provision taken alone, if the right to compensation was subject to further conditions (see Petlyovanyy v.Ukraine (dec.), no. 54904/08, 30 September 2014).

• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 24686/12

  PORTYANKO v. UKRAINE

  At the same time, in a situation where the lack of a procedure governing the payment of compensation was the only obstacle to a person's otherwise clear entitlement to a particular type of compensation under the law, the Court considered that such person could be said to have a claim sufficiently established to be enforceable and could validly claim its recovery against the State (see, mutatis mutandis, Zolotyuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 3958/13, 16 December 2014; Petlyovanyy v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 54904/08, 30 September 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 30.03.2023 - 45903/16

  DAVYDENKO v. UKRAINE and 3 other applications

  The Court observes that in Petlyovanyy v. Ukraine ((dec.), no. 54904/08, 30 September 2014) and Bakulin v. Ukraine ((dec.), no. 5687/07, § 33, 12 February 2019), it found that compensation under the above-mentioned provisions of the Code was dependent on further elaboration of the procedure and the conditions for obtaining such compensation in domestic law.
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 3958/13

  ZOLOTYUK v. UKRAINE

  At the same time, in a situation where the lack of a procedure governing the payment of compensation was the only obstacle to a person's otherwise clear entitlement to a particular type of compensation under the law, the Court considered that such person could be said to have a claim sufficiently established to be enforceable and could validly claim its recovery against the State (see Petlyovanyy v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 54904/08, 30 September 2014, with further references).