Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PETAR MATAS v. CROATIA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Just satisfaction dismissed (out of time) (Article 41 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MATAS v. CROATIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 40581/12
• EGMR, 17.10.2018 - 40581/12

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 40581/12

  In these circumstances, noting that it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, § 52, Series A no. 222), the Court will proceed on the assumption that the interference with the applicant's property was lawful, and examine whether it pursued a legitimate aim and struck a "fair balance" between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 68-69, Series A no. 52).

  We consider the issue of compensation crucial for the determination of whether or not a fair balance was struck between the applicant's individual rights and the general interest of the community (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69 and 73, Series A no. 52).

• EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 61093/00

  SCEA FERME DE FRESNOY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 40581/12

  The Court considers that the restriction on the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions by the application of the measure of preventive protection is not open to criticism per se, having regard in particular to the legitimate aim pursued and the wide margin of appreciation allowed to the State where cultural heritage issues are concerned (see SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII extracts).

  The applicant did not submit, for instance, that he had sought and been denied authorisation for any specific transaction or activity relating to his property (compare, by way of example, SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts), and Fürst von Thurn und Taxis v. Germany (dec.), no. 26367/10, § 27, 14 May 2013).

• EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 26367/10

  FÜRST VON THURN UND TAXIS v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 40581/12

  The Court notes that, in the instant case, there was nothing to indicate that measures of protection relating to cultural heritage could be applied in respect of the building at the time the applicant purchased it for commercial use (compare Potomska and Potomski, cited above, § 68, and, by contrast, Fürst von Thurn und Taxis v. Germany (dec.), no. 26367/10, § 24, 14 May 2013).

  The applicant did not submit, for instance, that he had sought and been denied authorisation for any specific transaction or activity relating to his property (compare, by way of example, SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts), and Fürst von Thurn und Taxis v. Germany (dec.), no. 26367/10, § 27, 14 May 2013).

 
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 38353/05

  DIACONESCU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 40581/12

  At the same time, we do not want to imply that any restriction of the applicant's rights invariably had to be accompanied by some form of compensation (see Potomska and Potomski v. Poland, no. 33949/05, § 67, 29 March 2011; Fürst von Thurn und Taxis, cited above, § 23; and Diaconescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 38353/05, 17 September 2013).
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 14717/04

  BERGER-KRALL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 40581/12

  Where a measure controlling the use of property is in issue, the lack of compensation is a factor to be taken into consideration, but is not of itself sufficient to constitute a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 91, ECHR 2010, and Berger-Krall and Others v. Slovenia, no. 14717/04), § 199, 12 June 2014).
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 40581/12

  In these circumstances, noting that it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, § 52, Series A no. 222), the Court will proceed on the assumption that the interference with the applicant's property was lawful, and examine whether it pursued a legitimate aim and struck a "fair balance" between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 68-69, Series A no. 52).
• EGMR, 23.01.2003 - 51307/99

  GEFFRE contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 40581/12

  The system allows the owners of protected property to turn to the State if they consider that the burden imposed on them by the protection measure is out of proportion to the aim pursued in the general interest (compare Geffre v. France (dec.), no. 51307/99, ECHR 2003-I (extracts)).