Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 12655/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2015,3042
EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 12655/09 (https://dejure.org/2015,3042)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03.03.2015 - 12655/09 (https://dejure.org/2015,3042)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03. März 2015 - 12655/09 (https://dejure.org/2015,3042)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,3042) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DIMITROVI v. BULGARIA

    Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

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

  • EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

    ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 12655/09
    Still, this provision must be construed in the light of the general principle set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph (see, among many examples, Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A no. 163, § 55).
  • EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90

    WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 12655/09
    They referred to the Court's judgments in the cases of Welch v. the United Kingdom (9 February 1995, Series A no. 307-A), and Phillips v. the United Kingdom (no. 41087/98, ECHR 2001-VII).
  • EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

    LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 12655/09
    All this, coupled with the fact that the procedure under Chapter Three of the CPA was very rarely resorted to after 1989 (see paragraph 28 above), means that the CPA did not meet the foreseeability requirement set out in the paragraph above, which entails that a person should be able - if need be with appropriate advice - to reasonably foresee the consequences which a given action may cause (see, mutatis mutandis, Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 41, ECHR 2007-IV).
  • EGMR, 30.08.2007 - 44302/02

    J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LTD ET J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LAND LTD c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 12655/09
    However, even in view of the wide margin of appreciation enjoyed by States in implementing social and economic policies and thus in determining that general interest, as recognised by the Court on numerous occasions (see, for example, Draon v. France [GC], no. 1513/03, § 76, 6 October 2005; J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, § 71, ECHR 2007-III; Berger-Krall and Others v. Slovenia, no. 14717/04, § 192, 12 June 2014; and Alisic and Others, cited above, § 106), the Court fails to perceive a legitimate aim pursued by the legislation applicable in the present case.
  • EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

    LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 12655/09
    However, the three rules are not distinct in the sense of being unconnected: the second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1986, § 106, Series A no. 102).
  • EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

    HENTRICH v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 12655/09
    It thus presupposes that the rules of domestic law must be sufficiently precise and foreseeable (see Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 42, Series A no. 296-A, and Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 109, ECHR 2000-I), and that the law must provide a measure of legal protection against arbitrariness (see Zlínsat, spol. s r.o., cited above, § 98).
  • EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

    SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 12655/09
    It comprises three distinct rules: the first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of the peaceful enjoyment of property; the second rule, contained in the second sentence of the first paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and subjects it to certain conditions; the third rule, stated in the second paragraph, recognises that the Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest (see, among others, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52).
  • EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 14717/04

    BERGER-KRALL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 12655/09
    However, even in view of the wide margin of appreciation enjoyed by States in implementing social and economic policies and thus in determining that general interest, as recognised by the Court on numerous occasions (see, for example, Draon v. France [GC], no. 1513/03, § 76, 6 October 2005; J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, § 71, ECHR 2007-III; Berger-Krall and Others v. Slovenia, no. 14717/04, § 192, 12 June 2014; and Alisic and Others, cited above, § 106), the Court fails to perceive a legitimate aim pursued by the legislation applicable in the present case.
  • EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

    MARCKX v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 12655/09
    Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees the right of property (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 63, Series A no. 31).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht