Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 40169/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,62103) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GUDJONSSON v. ICELAND
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+P12, P12 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94
CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 40169/05
Moreover, the Court finds that the applicant's right to engage in fishing in the net zone adjacent to the coastal property in question constituted a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The limitation on that right resulting from the conditions to obtain permits for commercial fishing of lumpfish and from the sanctions imposed for failure to do so constituted a control of the use of those possessions within the meaning of the second paragraph of this Article (see Alatulkkila and Others v. Finland, no. 33538/96, § 66, 28 July 2005; Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, § 76, ECHR 2002-VII, both dealing with fishing rights; see also Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 74, ECHR 1999-III, dealing with hunting rights). - EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 27824/95
POSTI AND RAHKO v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 40169/05
Moreover, the Court finds that the applicant's right to engage in fishing in the net zone adjacent to the coastal property in question constituted a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The limitation on that right resulting from the conditions to obtain permits for commercial fishing of lumpfish and from the sanctions imposed for failure to do so constituted a control of the use of those possessions within the meaning of the second paragraph of this Article (see Alatulkkila and Others v. Finland, no. 33538/96, § 66, 28 July 2005; Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, § 76, ECHR 2002-VII, both dealing with fishing rights; see also Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 74, ECHR 1999-III, dealing with hunting rights). - EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 47316/99
Rechtssache F.-N. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 40169/05
It reiterates in that connection that it is in the first place for the domestic authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply the domestic law (Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos. 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01, § 86, ECHR 2005-VI; Wittek v. Germany, no. 37290/97, § 49, ECHR 2002-X; Forrer-Niedenthal v. Germany, no. 47316/99, § 39, 20 February 2003; and The former King of Greece and Others, cited above, § 82).