Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KECMAN v. SERBIA

  Art. 14, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 10968/04

  Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of one or more of such provisions, and to this extent it is autonomous, there can be no room for its application unless the facts of the case fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-IV, and Polacek and Polackova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 38645/97, § 69, 10 July 2002; and contrast with Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, §§ 74-92, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 38645/97

  POLACEK and POLACKOVA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 10968/04

  Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of one or more of such provisions, and to this extent it is autonomous, there can be no room for its application unless the facts of the case fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-IV, and Polacek and Polackova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 38645/97, § 69, 10 July 2002; and contrast with Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, §§ 74-92, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 10968/04

  The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, § 88, 31 May 2005), considers that the applicant's complaint falls to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 read separately and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention (see, for example, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, ECHR 2002-VII).

 
• EGMR, 02.03.2005 - 71916/01

  Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetzes über die Wiedergutmachung von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 10968/04

  However, although it remained in force after the respondent State's ratification of Protocol No. 1, the legislation enacted prior to the ratification cannot be regarded as generating a new property right protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for the benefit of the applicant, as he had failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for the conversion of his savings into Government bonds, namely having a registered residence in the Republic of Serbia at the relevant time (see paragraphs 15, 16 and 19 above; see, in respect of arrangements for restitution or compensation of property confiscated under a previous regime, Von Maltzan and Others v. Germany (dec.) [GC], no. 71916/01 et seq., §§ 74 and 112, ECHR 2005-V; Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004-IX; Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 125, ECHR 2004-V; and contrast with Carson and Others v. United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94

  AKDENIZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 10968/04

  The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, § 88, 31 May 2005), considers that the applicant's complaint falls to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 read separately and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention (see, for example, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 18.02.2009 - 55707/00

  Andrejeva ./. Lettland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 10968/04

  Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of one or more of such provisions, and to this extent it is autonomous, there can be no room for its application unless the facts of the case fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-IV, and Polacek and Polackova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 38645/97, § 69, 10 July 2002; and contrast with Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, §§ 74-92, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 21811/09

  ILIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 10968/04

  Therefore, the present case must be distinguished from the previous cases in which the respondent States had converted the applicants" foreign-currency savings into public debts and the Court's examination solely concerned the various aspects of settling such debts under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, in respect of "old" foreign-currency savings, Molnar Gabor, cited above, §§ 43-51; Trajkovski v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (dec.), no. 53320/99, ECHR 2002-IV; and Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, 3 November 2009); as regards deposits with Dafiment, see Ilic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 21811/09, 14 September 2010; Ribic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 16735/02, 14 December 2010; and Nikac v. Serbia (dec.), no. 17224/03, 17 May 2011).
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 16735/02

  RIBIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 10968/04

  Therefore, the present case must be distinguished from the previous cases in which the respondent States had converted the applicants" foreign-currency savings into public debts and the Court's examination solely concerned the various aspects of settling such debts under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, in respect of "old" foreign-currency savings, Molnar Gabor, cited above, §§ 43-51; Trajkovski v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (dec.), no. 53320/99, ECHR 2002-IV; and Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, 3 November 2009); as regards deposits with Dafiment, see Ilic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 21811/09, 14 September 2010; Ribic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 16735/02, 14 December 2010; and Nikac v. Serbia (dec.), no. 17224/03, 17 May 2011).
• EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 17224/03

  NIKAC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 10968/04

  Therefore, the present case must be distinguished from the previous cases in which the respondent States had converted the applicants" foreign-currency savings into public debts and the Court's examination solely concerned the various aspects of settling such debts under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, in respect of "old" foreign-currency savings, Molnar Gabor, cited above, §§ 43-51; Trajkovski v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (dec.), no. 53320/99, ECHR 2002-IV; and Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, 3 November 2009); as regards deposits with Dafiment, see Ilic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 21811/09, 14 September 2010; Ribic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 16735/02, 14 December 2010; and Nikac v. Serbia (dec.), no. 17224/03, 17 May 2011).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 10968/04

  However, the belief that the law in force will be changed for the benefit of the applicant cannot be regarded as a form of legitimate expectation for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court has on numerous occasions held that there is a difference between a mere hope of restitution, however reasonable that hope may be, and a legitimate expectation, which must be of a nature more concrete than a mere hope, and be based on a legal provision or a legal act such as a judicial decision (ibid., § 73, and see also Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332).
• EGMR, 07.03.2002 - 53320/99

  TRAJKOVSKI c. " L'EX-REPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACEDOINE "