Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 57675/09 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,35739) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ZILINSKIENE v. LITHUANIA
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97
COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 57675/09
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 an overall assessment (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87
RAIMONDO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 57675/09
The annulment was definitive and not dependent on the final outcome of the criminal case (see, by contrast, Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, §§ 20 and 29, Series A no. 281-A). - EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 57675/09
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, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91
AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 57675/09
The Court's constant approach has been that confiscation, while it involves the deprivation of possessions, also constitutes control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Sun v. Russia, no. 31004/02, § 25, 5 February 2009; C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, 26 June 2001; and Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A). - EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93
IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 57675/09
The second and third rules, which are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of property, must be construed in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see, among many authorities, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 44, ECHR 1999-V, and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 134, ECHR 2004-V). - EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 194/02
NIKOLOVI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 73465/01
TZILEVI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 53367/99
STOYANOVA AND IVANOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 51362/99
ENEVA AND DOBREV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 15.03.2007 - 43278/98
VELIKOVI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 48380/99
TODOROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 36548/97
PINCOVÁ ET PINC c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 39859/14
PANNON PLAKÁT KFT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Among the matters which the Court takes into account when assessing compensation are pecuniary damage, which is the loss actually suffered as a direct result of an alleged violation, and non-pecuniary damage, which is the anxiety, inconvenience, uncertainty and other non-pecuniary prejudice caused by the violation (see Zilinskiene v. Lithuania, no. 57675/09, § 60, 1 December 2015). - EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 50811/10
BARCZA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Among the matters which the Court takes into account when assessing compensation are pecuniary damage, which is the loss actually suffered as a direct result of an alleged violation, and non-pecuniary damage, which is reparation for the anxiety, inconvenience, uncertainty and other non-pecuniary loss caused by such violation (see, Zilinskiene v. Lithuania, no. 57675/09, § 60, 1 December 2015). - EGMR, 15.04.2021 - 59026/14
PORÁZIK v. HUNGARY
Among the matters which the Court takes into account when assessing compensation are pecuniary damage, which is the loss actually suffered as a direct result of an alleged violation, and non-pecuniary damage, which is the anxiety, inconvenience, uncertainty and other non-pecuniary loss caused by the violation (see Zilinskiene v. Lithuania, no. 57675/09, § 60, 1 December 2015).