Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 37448/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,51311) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
J. LAUTIER COMPANY LIMITED v. MALTA
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 03.11.2005 - 38244/03
ABDILLA v. MALTA
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 37448/06
Nevertheless, in the exercise of its power of review the Court must determine whether the requisite balance was maintained in a manner consonant with the applicant's right of property (see Abdilla v. Malta (dec.), no 38244/03, 3 November 2005). - EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 37448/06
The Court reiterates that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees, in substance, the right to property and comprises three distinct rules (see, for example, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 24, § 61). - EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91
AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 37448/06
They must be construed in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see, for example, Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A, p. 15, §§ 29 and 30).
- EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 30633/11
LAY LAY COMPANY LIMITED v. MALTA
Nevertheless, in the exercise of its power of review the Court must determine whether the requisite balance was maintained in a manner consonant with the applicant's right of property (see Abdilla v. Malta (dec.), no 38244/03, 3 November 2005, and J. Lautier Company Limited v. Malta (dec.) no. 37448/06, 2 December 2008). - EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 67557/10
FARRUGIA v. MALTA
In this regard, the taking of property effected in pursuance of legitimate social, economic or other policies may be "in the public interest", even if the community at large has no direct use or enjoyment of the property taken (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, §§ 40 and 45, Series A no. 98, and J. Lautier Company Ltd v. Malta (dec.), no. 37448/06, 2 December 2008).