Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TIRAMAVIA S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 54115/09, 55707/09, 55770/09
• EGMR, 13.11.2019 - 54115/09

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

• EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 60115/00

  Meinungsfreiheit von Rechtsanwälten bei der öffentlichen Kritik von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 54115/09

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be made under Article 41 of the Convention, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Amihalachioaie v. Moldova, no. 60115/00, § 47, ECHR 2004-III).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84

  TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 54115/09

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, the termination of a valid licence to run a business amounts to an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, § 55, and Rosenzweig and Bonded Warehouses Ltd. v. Poland, no. 51728/99, § 48, 28 July 2005).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 54115/09

  In ascertaining whether this condition has been satisfied, a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable judicial and administrative procedures (see Capital Bank AD, ibid; Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, p. 21, § 49; and Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV).

 
• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  JOKELA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 54115/09

  In ascertaining whether this condition has been satisfied, a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable judicial and administrative procedures (see Capital Bank AD, ibid; Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, p. 21, § 49; and Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37410/97

  KAMIL UZUN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 54115/09

  However, taking into account the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and the above findings under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see, among other authorities, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 54115/09

  However, taking into account the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and the above findings under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see, among other authorities, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).