Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZÁKOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  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 - Deprivation of property) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Záková v. the Czech Republic

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 2000/09
• EGMR, 06.04.2017 - 2000/09
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 2000/09

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 2000/09

  The Court must now assess, in the light of the principles set out in paragraphs 80 to 82 above, whether the interference was proportionate and whether the applicant did not have to bear an excessive individual burden (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02

  Depalle ./. Frankreich - Brosset Triboulet u. a. ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 2000/09

  The fact that the domestic laws of a State do not recognise a particular interest as a "right" or even a "property right" does not necessarily prevent the interest in question, in some circumstances, from being regarded as a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Brosset-Triboulet and Others v. France [GC], no. 34078/02, § 71, 29 March 2010).
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 2000/09

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning restitution of property, including the judgments of the Constitutional Court referred to in paragraphs 54 and 55 below, is set out in the Court's decisions in the cases of Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, § 19-44, ECHR 2002-VII, and Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII respectively.

 
• EKMR, 04.03.1996 - 23131/93

  BREZNY and BREZNY contre la REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 2000/09

  Although this approach does not generally raise any issue under the Convention (see, for example, Brezny and Brezny v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23131/93, 4 March 1996 and Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 41, ECHR 2004-IX), the Court notes in the present case that the interference took place only in 1997 and on the basis of a judgment that was no longer in effect at that time.
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 7097/10

  GLADYSHEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 2000/09

  Having regard to the complexity of the factual and legal position, the Court will review the present case under the general rule set forth in the first sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Beyeler, cited above, § 106; Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 136, ECHR 2004-V; and Gladysheva v. Russia, no. 7097/10, § 71, 6 December 2011).
• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  JOKELA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 2000/09

  In ascertaining whether this condition has been satisfied, a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable procedures (see, among other authorities, Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV).