Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAGO AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Art. 35, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property Possessions) No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 12959/05

  The crux of the present case is whether the cancellation of the applicants" occupancy rights, which prevents them from repossessing their pre-war flats, was contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In a similar case (Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, ECHR 2006-III), the Court held that the cancellation of an occupancy right was an instantaneous act rather than a continuing situation (§ 86).

  It will thus be used in this judgment instead of the term "specially protected tenancy" used by the Court in Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, ECHR 2006-III, and other cases against Croatia.

• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 12959/05

  It is true that mere doubts regarding the effectiveness of a remedy cannot absolve an applicant from the obligation to try it (see Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002), but a remedy which did not offer reasonable prospects of success, for example in the light of settled domestic case-law, will not be regarded as effective (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 27, Series A no. 332) and will not be taken into account for the purposes of the six-month rule.
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 12959/05

  The Court has held in comparable situations that, as a matter of principle, no difference in treatment which is based exclusively or to a decisive extent on one's ethnic origin is capable of being objectively justified in a contemporary democratic society (Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 44, ECHR 2009; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 176, ECHR 2007-IV; and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 58, ECHR 2005-XII).

 
• EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 77631/01

  MILOSEVIC v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 12959/05

  It is true that mere doubts regarding the effectiveness of a remedy cannot absolve an applicant from the obligation to try it (see Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002), but a remedy which did not offer reasonable prospects of success, for example in the light of settled domestic case-law, will not be regarded as effective (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 27, Series A no. 332) and will not be taken into account for the purposes of the six-month rule.
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00

  TIMISHEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 12959/05

  The Court has held in comparable situations that, as a matter of principle, no difference in treatment which is based exclusively or to a decisive extent on one's ethnic origin is capable of being objectively justified in a contemporary democratic society (Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 44, ECHR 2009; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 176, ECHR 2007-IV; and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 58, ECHR 2005-XII).
• EGMR, 05.01.2006 - 14881/04

  FERNIE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 12959/05

  It should be emphasised, however, that only remedies which are effective can be taken into account as applicants cannot extend the strict time-limit imposed by the Convention by seeking to make inappropriate or misconceived applications to bodies or institutions which have no power to offer effective redress for the complaint in issue (see Fernie v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 14881/04, 5 January 2006).
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 12959/05

  The Court has held in comparable situations that, as a matter of principle, no difference in treatment which is based exclusively or to a decisive extent on one's ethnic origin is capable of being objectively justified in a contemporary democratic society (Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 44, ECHR 2009; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 176, ECHR 2007-IV; and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 58, ECHR 2005-XII).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 12959/05

  That being said, a taking of property effected in pursuance of a policy calculated to enhance social justice within the community 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, §§ 40-45, Series A no. 98).

• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 28704/11

  APOSTOLOVSKI AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Mr Apostolovski bought his military flat shortly before the 1992-95 war (compare okic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 6518/04, 27 May 2010), whereas the other two applicants did not (compare Mago and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 12959/05 and 5 others, 3 May 2012).
• EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 50853/06

  KVASNEVSKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  For example, in Bosnia and Herzegovina all "occupancy rights" holders were, as a rule, entitled to recover their pre-war flats and then purchase them on very favourable terms (see Mago and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 12959/05 and 5 others, § 78, 3 May 2012).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 19887/21

  PRODANOVIC AND TODOROVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  They did not buy those flats but held an occupancy right on them (see Mago and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 12959/05 and 5 others, 3 May 2012; contrast okic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 6518/04, 27 May 2010).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 9544/12

  JAKOVLJEVIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Some applicants bought their flats shortly before the 1992-95 war (compare okic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 6518/04, 27 May 2010), whereas the others did not (compare Mago and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 12959/05 and 5 others, 3 May 2012).