Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SMILJANIC v. SLOVENIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 481/04

  By way of contrast, the hope of recognition of a property right which it has been impossible to exercise effectively cannot be considered a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition (see Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, §§ 82-83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Polacek and Polackova v. Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 38645/97, § 62, 10 July 2002; and Bugarski and von Vuchetich v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 44142/98, 3 July 2001).

  Where categories of owners are excluded in this way, their claims for restitution cannot provide the basis for a "legitimate expectation" attracting the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, §§ 70-74, ECHR 2002-VII, and Preussische Treuhand Gmbh & Co. KG A. A.

• EGMR, 03.07.2001 - 44142/98

  BUGARSKI ET VON VUCHETICH contre la SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 481/04

  By way of contrast, the hope of recognition of a property right which it has been impossible to exercise effectively cannot be considered a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition (see Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, §§ 82-83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Polacek and Polackova v. Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 38645/97, § 62, 10 July 2002; and Bugarski and von Vuchetich v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 44142/98, 3 July 2001).
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 38645/97

  POLACEK and POLACKOVA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 481/04

  By way of contrast, the hope of recognition of a property right which it has been impossible to exercise effectively cannot be considered a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition (see Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, §§ 82-83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Polacek and Polackova v. Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 38645/97, § 62, 10 July 2002; and Bugarski and von Vuchetich v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 44142/98, 3 July 2001).

 
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

  SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 481/04

  (b) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee the right to acquire property (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48, and Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 02.03.2005 - 71916/01

  Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetzes über die Wiedergutmachung von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 481/04

  71916/01, 71917/01 and 10260/02, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 77782/01

  LUCZAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 481/04

  65731/01 and 56900/01, ECHR 2005-X; subsequently confirmed by the Grand Chamber's judgment in Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 77, 18 February 2009 ; see also Luczak v. Poland, no. 77782/01; § 48, ECHR 2007).
• EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 47550/06

  Fall Preußische Treuhand gegen Polen

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 481/04

  v. Poland (dec.), no. 47550/06, 7 October 2008).
• EGMR, 18.02.2009 - 55707/00

  Andrejeva ./. Lettland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 481/04

  65731/01 and 56900/01, ECHR 2005-X; subsequently confirmed by the Grand Chamber's judgment in Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 77, 18 February 2009 ; see also Luczak v. Poland, no. 77782/01; § 48, ECHR 2007).
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 481/04

  (b) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee the right to acquire property (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48, and Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II).