Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KVASNEVSKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 50853/06
• EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 50853/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 50853/06

  Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee any particular content of civil "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States: the Court may not create by way of interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 117, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  KÁROLY NAGY v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 50853/06

  The Court considers that the question to be answered in the present case is whether the applicants had a "right" which, for reasons that are at least arguable, could be said to be recognised under domestic law (see, for a recent authority, Károly Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 56665/09, § 64, ECHR 2017).
• EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 47550/06

  Fall Preußische Treuhand gegen Polen

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 50853/06

  States had no duty under that provision to enact laws providing for restitution of confiscated property or compensation for property lost during the previous regime (Preussische Treuhand GmbH & CO. Kg A. A. v. Poland (dec.), no. 47550/06, § 64, 7 October 2008).

 
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 50853/06

  The Court has also referred to claims in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised, that is, that he or she will obtain effective enjoyment of a property right (see, inter alia, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII, and Kopecký, cited above, § 35).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 50853/06

  Where a proprietary interest is in the nature of a claim, it may be regarded as an "asset" only if there is a sufficient basis for that interest in national law (for example, where there is settled case-law of the domestic courts confirming it), that is, when the claim is sufficiently established as to be enforceable (see Kopecký, cited above, §§ 49 and 52, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 59, Series A no. 301-B).
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

  SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 50853/06

  They contended that the mere hope of recognition of a property right could not be considered as a "possession" for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (they referred to Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, §§ 121-122, ECHR 2002-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 07.07.2005 - 41302/02

  MALINOVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 50853/06

  In Malinovskiy - where the domestic courts had obliged the municipality to provide the applicant with an apartment under a "socially protected tenancy" - the Court held that the applicant would have had a right to possess and make use of the flat and to privatise it (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 44, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 34162/06

  TRIFUNOVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 50853/06

  As regards the "specially protected tenancies" in Croatia, the Court held that an applicant who had met all the legal conditions for acquiring the right to purchase a flat had a claim that had sufficient basis in national law to qualify as an "asset" and thus a "possession" under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, §§ 40-45, 29 March 2011; contrast with Gacesa v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43389/02, 1 April 2008, and Trifunovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 34162/06, 6 November 2008, where the applicants had no claim under domestic law to purchase the flat at issue).
• EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 12959/05

  MAGO AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 50853/06

  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, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 50853/06

  37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 142-143, ECHR 2018:.