Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GAYDUK ET AUTRES c. UKRAINE

  Art. 34, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GAYDUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Art. 34, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (26)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EKMR, 09.05.1986 - 11628/85

  LINDE v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 45526/99

  However, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee any right to acquire the ownership of property (Linde v. Sweden, application no. 11628/85, Commission decision of 9 May 1986, DR 47, p. 270).
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 45526/99

  The Court reiterates that, according to the established case-law of the Convention organs, "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be "existing possessions" (see 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 Pine Valley Developments Ltd. and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; and Pressos Companía Naviera S.A. 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, 02.07.2002 - 45526/99

  The Court reiterates that, according to the established case-law of the Convention organs, "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be "existing possessions" (see 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 Pine Valley Developments Ltd. and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; and Pressos Companía Naviera S.A. v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31).

 
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 45526/99

  The Court reiterates that, according to the established case-law of the Convention organs, "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be "existing possessions" (see 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 Pine Valley Developments Ltd. and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; and Pressos Companía Naviera S.A. v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31).
• EKMR, 06.03.1980 - 8724/79

  X.v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 45526/99

  Consequently, it does not impose any general obligation on States to maintain the purchasing power of sums deposited through the systematic indexation of savings (Rudzinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 45223/99, ECHR 1999-VI; and X. v. Germany, application no. 8724/79, Commission decision of 6 March 1980, DR 20, p. 226).
• EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 45223/99

  RUDZINSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 45526/99

  Consequently, it does not impose any general obligation on States to maintain the purchasing power of sums deposited through the systematic indexation of savings (Rudzinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 45223/99, ECHR 1999-VI; and X. v. Germany, application no. 8724/79, Commission decision of 6 March 1980, DR 20, p. 226).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

  PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 45526/99

  Similarly, by "victim" Article 25 means the person directly affected by the act or omission which is in issue, a violation being conceivable even in the absence of any detriment; the latter is relevant only to the question of just satisfaction (see, among many other authorities, the Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, p. 19, § 6).

• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  45526/99 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; or, as a more recent authority, Appolonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 67578/01, 29 August 2002).
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 2489/09

  FLORES CARDOSO c. PORTUGAL

  A cet égard, la Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence bien établie selon laquelle l'on ne saurait déduire de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 une obligation générale pour les Etats de maintenir, par une indexation systématique, le pouvoir d'achat des sommes déposées auprès de banques ou d'organismes financiers (Rudzinska c. Pologne (déc.), no 45223/99, CEDH 1999-VI ; Gayduk et autres c. Ukraine (déc.), nos 45526/99, 46099/99, 47088/99, 47176/99, 47177/99, 48018/99, 48043/99, 48071/99, 48580/99, 48624/99, 49426/99, 50354/99, 51934/99, 51938/99, 53423/99, 53424/99, 54120/00, 54124/00, 54136/00, 55542/00 et 56019/00, CEDH 2002-VI (extraits) ; Boyajyan c. Arménie, no 38003/04, § 55, 22 mars 2011).

  Compte tenu de la nature des dépôts, et contrairement à ce que dit la Cour (§ 55), la jurisprudence citée (Rudzinska c. Pologne (déc.), no 45223/99, CEDH 1999-VI ; Gayduk et autres c. Ukraine (déc.), nos 45526/99, 46099/99, 47088/99, 47176/99, 47177/99, 48018/99, 48043/99, 48071/99, 48580/99, 48624/99, 49426/99, 50354/99, 51934/99, 51938/99, 53423/99, 53424/99, 54120/00, 54124/00, 54136/00, 55542/00 et 56019/00, CEDH 2002-VI (extraits)) n'est pas applicable.

• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01

  PAVLYULYNETS v. UKRAINE

  45526/99 and foll., ECHR 2002-VI (extracts).

 
• EGMR, 17.10.2011 - 60642/08

  ALISIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, CROATIA, SERBIA, SLOVENIA AND

  45526/99, 46099/99, 47088/99, 47176/99, 47177/99, 48018/99, 48043/99, 48071/99, 48580/99, 48624/99, 49426/99, 50354/99, 51934/99, 51938/99, 53423/99, 53424/99, 54120/00, 54124/00, 54136/00, 55542/00 and 56019/00, ECHR 2002-VI; Appolonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 67578/01, 29 August 2002; and Kireev v. Moldova and Russia (dec.), no. 11375/05, 1 July 2008), in that the present case does not concern the purchasing power or indexation, but a general access to the applicants" savings.
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 60975/08

  SIEMASZKO ET OLSZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Citant les affaires X. c. Allemagne ((déc.), no 8724/79, 6 mars 1980), Rudzinska c. Pologne ((déc.), no 45223/99, 7 septembre 1999), Gayduk c. Ukraine ((déc.), no 45526/99, 2 juillet 2002) ou Ryabykh c. Russie (no 52854/99, 24 juillet 2003), le Gouvernement fait observer que les États ne sont pas responsables pour des sommes déposées dans des banques privées et que l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention ne leur impose aucune obligation de maintenir, par une indexation systématique, le pouvoir d'achat des sommes concernées.
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 45394/06

  KRSTIC v. SERBIA

  45526/99 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, ECHR 2003-IX; and Cular v. Croatia, no. 55213/07, 22 April 2010).
• EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 609/07

  PUTO AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  45526/99, 46099/99, 47088/99, 47176/99, 47177/99, 48018/99, 48043/99, 48071/99, 48580/99, 48624/99, 49426/99, 50354/99, 51934/99, 51938/99, 53423/99, 53424/99, 54120/00, 54124/00, 54136/00, 55542/00 and 56019/00, ECHR 2002-VI (extracts).
• EGMR, 14.04.2011 - 35079/06

  PATOUX c. FRANCE

  La Cour rappelle que selon sa jurisprudence constante, par «victime» l'article 34 désigne la personne directement concernée par l'acte ou l'omission litigieux, c'est-à-dire la personne ayant un intérêt personnel, direct et valable à obtenir qu'il y soit mis fin (Gayduk et autres c. Ukraine (déc.), nos 45526/99 et autres, CEDH 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 17211/03

  DOLNEANU v. MOLDOVA

  However, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee any right to acquire the ownership of property (see Gayduk and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 45526/99, 2 July 2002).
• EGMR, 22.03.2011 - 38003/04

  BOYAJYAN v. ARMENIA

  45526/99, 46099/99, 47088/99, 47176/99, 47177/99, 48018/99, 48043/99, 48071/99, 48580/99, 48624/99, 49426/99, 50354/99, 51934/99, 51938/99, 53423/99, 53424/99, 54120/00, 54124/00, 54136/00, 55542/00 and 56019/00, ECHR 2002-VI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 11375/05

  KIREEV v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 9510/03

  LESINA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 19363/05

  TESS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 58928/00

  KATSYUK c. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 35087/02

  SHARENOK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 8821/08

  BAYDUZH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 11989/03

  MARGUSHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 3041/04

  BURLACU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 45520/04

  LARIONOVS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 19916/04

  MIRONOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 06.11.2006 - 35972/02

  KOROLKOV and KAMARDA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 18.09.2006 - 37658/03

  SHERSTYUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 21.10.2004 - 67986/01

  KRUPSS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 29.08.2002 - 47578/01

  APPOLONOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 25678/09

  LANCHAVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 37863/05

  BILOZIR AND RIZOVA v. UKRAINE