Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHRISTIAN BAPTIST CHURCH IN WROCLAW v. POLAND

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KOSCIÓL CHRZESCIJAN BAPTYSTÓW v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 13.07.1983 - 8737/79

  Zimmermann und Steiner ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 32045/10

  The Government, relying on the Court's case-law (Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland, 13 July 1983, § 36, Series A no. 66), recalled that a party seeking reimbursement of costs and expenses must prove that they were necessarily incurred and that they were reasonable as to quantum.
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 32045/10

  The Court first notes that the period to be taken into consideration started with the appeal lodged by the applicant church on 23 September 1996 (see paragraph 18 above) (see König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27, Janssen v. Germany, no. 23959/94, § 40, 20 December 2001, and Mitkova v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 48386/09, § 49, 15 October 2015).
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

  SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 32045/10

  Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee the right to acquire property (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48, and Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II).

 
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 32045/10

  By way of contrast, the hope of recognition of a property right which has been impossible to exercise effectively cannot be considered a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfillment of the condition (see Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, §§ 82-83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 32045/10

  Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee the right to acquire property (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48, and Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 32045/10

  What is more, it was made at the early stage of the proceedings (see, by contrast, Papageorgiou v. Greece, 22 October 1997, § 38, Reports 1997-VI) which distinguishes the case from other cases dealt with by the Court in which the legislative changes altered the course of proceedings which had been pending for years and in which an enforceable judgment had been adopted (see Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 49, Series A no. 301-B; and Tarbuk v. Croatia, no. 31360/10, § 54, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 32045/10

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no.30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 32045/10

  By way of contrast, the hope of recognition of a property right which has been impossible to exercise effectively cannot be considered a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfillment of the condition (see Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, §§ 82-83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 24846/94

  ZIELINSKI ET PRADAL & GONZALEZ ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 32045/10

  The Court reiterates that it has previously found that applicability to current awards of compensation and to pending proceedings cannot in itself give rise to a problem under the Convention since the legislature is not, in theory, prevented from intervening in civil cases to amend the existing legal position by means of an immediately applicable law (see Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 57, ECHR 1999-VII, Scordino v. Italy (no 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 131 CEDH 2006-V, OGIS-Institut Stanislas, OGEC Saint-Pie X and Blanche de Castille and Others v. France, nos.

• EGMR - 64619/19 (anhängig)

  IERA MONI YPSOSEOS TIMIOU STAVROU THIVON v. GREECE

  Subject to Article 6 § 1 being applicable, did the applicant organisation have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Reference is made in particular to Article 51 § 3 of Law no. 4301/2014 and the applicant organisation's arguments (i) that the non-examination of its compliance with the Convention was in breach of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 in conjunction with Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention, and (ii) that it introduced a legislative change which altered the course of pending proceedings (see, for instance, Christian Baptist Church in Wroc?‚aw v. Poland, no. 32045/10, 5 April 2018 and Tarbuk v. Croatia, no. 31360/10, 11 December 2012).