Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GROBELNY v. POLAND

  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)

  GROBELNY v. POLAND

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05

  RASMUSSEN v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 60477/12

  On the other hand, where a legal entitlement to the economic benefit at issue is subject to a condition, a conditional claim that lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of that condition cannot be considered to amount to "possessions" for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, §§ 82-83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 60477/12

  In particular, there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised by any measure depriving a person of his possessions (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 38, Series A no. 332, and The former King of Greece and Others, cited above, § 89).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

  Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 60477/12

  On the other hand, where a legal entitlement to the economic benefit at issue is subject to a condition, a conditional claim that lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of that condition cannot be considered to amount to "possessions" for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, §§ 82-83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009).

 
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 60477/12

  In particular, the requisite "fair balance" will not be struck where the person concerned bears an individual and excessive burden (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69-74, Series A no. 52, and Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], cited above, § 78).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 60477/12

  They referred in this respect to a statement made by the Court in respect of the case of Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, ECHR 1999-V, § 42, in which the Italian Government's preliminary objection that the applicant company had not exhausted domestic remedies was dismissed by the Court.
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 60477/12

  The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see, among many authorities, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 48, Series A no. 108, and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 185, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02

  PRYSTAVSKA contre l'UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 60477/12

  The Government referred to the cases of Çinar v. Turkey (dec.), no. 28602/95, 13 November 2013, Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, ECHR 2003-VIII. By way of justification for their submission regarding the effectiveness of a cassation appeal in cases relating to a disability pension, the Government invoked a Supreme Court judgment of 12 February 2009 (file no. III UK 71/08) and considered that any doubts on the part of the applicant, who had been aware of the existence of a cassation appeal, had not absolved him from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies; the Government referred in that respect to the cases of Epözdemir v. Turkey (dec.), no. 57039/00, 31 January 2002, and Pellegriti v. Italy (dec.), no. 77363/01, 26 May 2005).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 51585/99

  HORVAT v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 60477/12

  The Government referred to the cases of Çinar v. Turkey (dec.), no. 28602/95, 13 November 2013, Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, ECHR 2003-VIII. By way of justification for their submission regarding the effectiveness of a cassation appeal in cases relating to a disability pension, the Government invoked a Supreme Court judgment of 12 February 2009 (file no. III UK 71/08) and considered that any doubts on the part of the applicant, who had been aware of the existence of a cassation appeal, had not absolved him from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies; the Government referred in that respect to the cases of Epözdemir v. Turkey (dec.), no. 57039/00, 31 January 2002, and Pellegriti v. Italy (dec.), no. 77363/01, 26 May 2005).
• EGMR, 26.05.2005 - 77363/01

  PELLEGRITI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 60477/12

  The Government referred to the cases of Çinar v. Turkey (dec.), no. 28602/95, 13 November 2013, Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, ECHR 2003-VIII. By way of justification for their submission regarding the effectiveness of a cassation appeal in cases relating to a disability pension, the Government invoked a Supreme Court judgment of 12 February 2009 (file no. III UK 71/08) and considered that any doubts on the part of the applicant, who had been aware of the existence of a cassation appeal, had not absolved him from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies; the Government referred in that respect to the cases of Epözdemir v. Turkey (dec.), no. 57039/00, 31 January 2002, and Pellegriti v. Italy (dec.), no. 77363/01, 26 May 2005).
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 41720/13

  NICOLAE VIRGILIU TANASE c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 60477/12

  When one remedy has been attempted, use of another remedy which has essentially the same purpose is not required (Kozacioglu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, §§ 40 et seq., 19 February 2009; Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, ECHR 2009; Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 177, 25 June 2019).
• EGMR, 21.02.2006 - 28602/95

  TÜM HABER SEN AND ÇINAR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …
• EGMR, 31.01.2002 - 57039/00

  EPÖZDEMIR v. TURKEY

• EGMR, 11.02.2021 - 4893/13

  CASARIN c. ITALIE

  Appréciation de la Cour 53. Eu égard aux principes généraux applicables en la matière auxquels elle renvoie (Romeva, précité, §§ 55-59 et 62-73, Cakarevic, précité, §§ 73-89, Moskal, précité, §§ 50-52, et Grobelny c. Pologne, no 60477/12, §§ 55-62, 5 mars 2020) et compte tenu de ses conclusions relatives à l'applicabilité de l'article 1 du Protocole no1 à la présente affaire (paragraphe 42 ci-dessus), la Cour estime que la mesure litigieuse a constitué une ingérence dans le droit de la requérante au respect de ses biens.