Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MELADZE v. GEORGIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 30635/09

  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 (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 65, ECHR 2007-I).
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 30635/09

  In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicant cannot claim, on the basis of the Squatters" Rights Act, to possess a sufficiently established proprietary interest to which a "legitimate expectation" could be attached (compare, amongst many others, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 72, ECHR 2002-VII; Bergsson and Others v. Iceland (dec.), no. 46461/06, 23 September 2008, and also Usta v. Turkey (dec.), no. 32212/11, §§ 40 and 41, 27 November 2012).
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 30635/09

  In this respect, the only question to be addressed in the circumstances of the present case is whether the applicant's expectation was based on a reasonably justified reliance on the Squatters" Rights Act (compare, for instance, with Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, § 51, Series A no. 222).

 
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 46461/06

  BERGSSON AND OTHERS v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 30635/09

  In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicant cannot claim, on the basis of the Squatters" Rights Act, to possess a sufficiently established proprietary interest to which a "legitimate expectation" could be attached (compare, amongst many others, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 72, ECHR 2002-VII; Bergsson and Others v. Iceland (dec.), no. 46461/06, 23 September 2008, and also Usta v. Turkey (dec.), no. 32212/11, §§ 40 and 41, 27 November 2012).
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 22522/03

  BOZCAADA KIMISIS TEODOKU RUM ORTODOKS KILISESI VAKFI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 30635/09

  However, a mere hope that the national authorities will decide in an applicant's favour cannot be regarded as a form of legitimate expectation for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova, cited above, § 53; Kopecký, cited above, §§ 52 and 58, and Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Rum Ortodoks Kilisesi Vakfi v. Turkey (dec.), no. 22522/03, 9 December 2008).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 32212/11

  USTA c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 30635/09

  In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicant cannot claim, on the basis of the Squatters" Rights Act, to possess a sufficiently established proprietary interest to which a "legitimate expectation" could be attached (compare, amongst many others, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 72, ECHR 2002-VII; Bergsson and Others v. Iceland (dec.), no. 46461/06, 23 September 2008, and also Usta v. Turkey (dec.), no. 32212/11, §§ 40 and 41, 27 November 2012).

• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 74019/12

  ELIAURI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  The availability and adequacy of this remedy, albeit in a slightly different context, has been consistently recognised by the Court in its case-law against the respondent State (see Meladze v. Georgia (dec.), no. 30635/09, § 46, ECHR 2 October 2018, with further references therein; see also Baghaturia, Nazaretian, and Shavishvili, all cited above).