Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 61093/00 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SCEA FERME DE FRESNOY c. FRANCE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 14 MRK
Irrecevable (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SCEA FERME DE FRESNOY v. FRANCE [Extracts]
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 14 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (14) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 32190/96
LUORDO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 61093/00
In determining whether this requirement is met, the Court recognises that the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 75, ECHR 1999-III, and Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, § 69, ECHR 2003-IX). - EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87
RAIMONDO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 61093/00
The Court notes that, in a number of cases, it has taken into account a similar wish of a deceased applicant's close relatives that the proceedings be continued (see, among many other authorities, Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 8, § 2). - EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94
CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 61093/00
In determining whether this requirement is met, the Court recognises that the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 75, ECHR 1999-III, and Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, § 69, ECHR 2003-IX).
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 40581/12
PETAR MATAS v. CROATIA
The Court considers that the restriction on the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions by the application of the measure of preventive protection is not open to criticism per se, having regard in particular to the legitimate aim pursued and the wide margin of appreciation allowed to the State where cultural heritage issues are concerned (see SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII extracts).The applicant did not submit, for instance, that he had sought and been denied authorisation for any specific transaction or activity relating to his property (compare, by way of example, SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts), and Fürst von Thurn und Taxis v. Germany (dec.), no. 26367/10, § 27, 14 May 2013).
- EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 2334/03
Kozacioglu ./. Türkei
A ce titre, elles constituent une valeur essentielle dont la défense et la promotion incombent aux pouvoirs publics (voir, mutatis mutandis, Beyeler, précité, § 112, SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy c. France (déc.), no 61093/00, CEDH 2005-XIII, et Debelianovi c. Bulgarie, no 61951/00, § 54, 29 mars 2007 ; voir aussi, mutatis mutandis, Hamer c. Belgique, no 21861/03, § 79, CEDH 2007-...). - EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32794/07
MATCZYNSKI v. POLAND
Consideration must be given in particular to the question of whether the applicant, on acquiring the property, knew - or should have reasonably known - about the restrictions on the property, or possible future restrictions (see Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, §§ 60-61, Series A no. 163, and Lacz v. Poland (dec.), no. 22665/02, 23 June 2009), the existence of legitimate expectations with respect to the use of the property or acceptance of the risk on purchase (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 54, Series A no. 192), the extent to which the restriction prevented use of the property (see Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, 27 October 1994, § 46, Series A no. 293-B, and SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)) and the possibility of challenging the need for the restriction (see Phocas v. France, 23 April 1996, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, and Papastavrou and Others v. Greece, no. 46372/99, § 37, ECHR 2003-IV).
- EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 33949/05
POTOMSKA AND POTOMSKI v. POLAND
The Court notes that the 1987 listing decision did not deprive the applicants of their possessions but subjected the use of those possessions to significant restrictions; hence, it may be regarded as a measure to control the use of property (see SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)). - EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 14340/05
Ökumenisches Patriarchat Fener Rum Patrikligi ./. Türkei
Toutefois, en l'espčce, il semble qu'un tel but ne soit pas pertinent puisque ni les tribunaux internes ni le Gouvernement ne se sont prévalus de la législation pertinente (paragraphe 45 ci-dessus) qui détermine les conditions dans lesquelles doivent ętre prises des mesures visant notamment ŕ préserver le patrimoine architectural, lorsqu'il s'agit de biens immeubles ayant une valeur culturelle, architecturale ou historique, comme c'est le cas en l'occurrence (voir, mutatis mutandis, Beyeler, précité, § 112 ; SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy c. France (déc.), no 61093/00, CEDH 2005-... ; en dernier lieu, Debelianovi c. Bulgarie, no 61951/00, § 54, 29 mars 2007). - EGMR, 29.03.2007 - 61951/00
DEBELIANOVI c. BULGARIE
De l'avis de la Cour, il s'agit d'un but légitime dans le cadre de la protection du patrimoine culturel d'un pays (voir, mutatis mutandis, Beyeler c. Italie [GC], no 33202/96, § 112, CEDH 2000-I et SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy c. France (déc.), no 61093/00, CEDH 2005-... (extraits). - EGMR, 16.11.2023 - 969/22
RACHEWSKAYA ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
Cette décision constitue une ingérence dans le droit des requérants au respect de leur bien, qui s'analyse en une réglementation de l'usage des biens, au sens du second paragraphe de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (voir sur la qualification d'une mesure similaire dans la catégorie des réglementations de l'usage de biens, Valette et Doherier c. France (déc.), no 6054/10, 29 novembre 2011, SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy c. France (déc.), no 61093/00, 1er décembre 2005). - EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 41248/06
BOGDEL v. LITHUANIA
As such, they are an essential value, the protection and promotion of which are incumbent on the public authorities (see SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); Debelianovi v. Bulgaria, no. 61951/00, § 54, 29 March 2007; KozacıoÄźlu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, § 54, 19 February 2009; and Potomska and Potomski v. Poland, no. 33949/05, § 64, 29 March 2011). - EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 2334/03
KOZACIOGLU c. TURQUIE
De l'avis de la Cour, l'expropriation poursuivait un but légitime dans le cadre de la protection du patrimoine culturel d'un pays (voir, mutatis mutandis, Beyeler c. Italie [GC], no 33202/96, § 112, CEDH 2000-I, SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy c. France (déc.), no 61093/00, CEDH 2005-..., et, en dernier lieu, Debelianovi c. Bulgarie, no 61951/00, § 54, 29 mars 2007). - EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 38322/15
DOGANGIL c. TURQUIE
« Pour cause d"utilité publique'56. La Cour estime que l'expropriation poursuivait un but légitime, ŕ savoir la protection du patrimoine culturel du pays (voir, mutatis mutandis, Beyeler c. Italie [GC], no 33202/96, § 112, CEDH 2000-I, SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy c. France (déc.), no 61093/00, CEDH 2005-XIII (extraits), et Debelianovi c. Bulgarie, no 61951/00, § 54, 29 mars 2007). - EGMR, 12.07.2011 - 1001/09
FIX c. GRČCE
- EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 37959/04
SINAN YILDIZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 73105/12
BERZINS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 12.07.2011 - 18290/02
MAIOLI c. ITALIE