Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BCR BANCA PENTRU LOCUINTE S.A. v. ROMANIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BCR BANCA PENTRU LOCUINÈšE S.A. v. ROMANIA

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 31390/18

  PETRESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 4558/20

  31390/18 and 9 others, § 70, 7 March 2023, with further references).
• EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 48921/13

  CAKAREVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 4558/20

  The Court reiterates that the concept of "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has an autonomous meaning which is not limited to ownership of material goods and is independent from the formal classification in domestic law: certain other rights and interests constituting assets can also be regarded as "property rights", and thus as "possessions" for the purposes of this provision (see Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 62, ECHR 2010, and Cakarevic v. Croatia, no. 48921/13, § 50, 26 April 2018).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 4558/20

  Although Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies only to a person's existing possessions and does not create a right to acquire property, in certain circumstances a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining an asset may also enjoy the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 65, ECHR 2007-I, and Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, § 74, ECHR 2016).

 
• EGMR, 04.05.2023 - 22619/14

  ALIF AHMADOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 4558/20

  The Court reiterates, however, that the absence of any reaction from the State authorities over a certain period of time should not have been understood by the applicant company as meaning that proceedings for the recovery of the State bonuses and the corresponding penalties could not be brought against it (see, mutatis mutandis, Alif Ahmadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 22619/14, § 44, 4 May 2023), along with all their corresponding implications for the applicant company's enjoyment of its business.
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 4558/20

  Thus, while an administrative decision may be subject to revocation for the future, an expectation that it should not be called into question retrospectively should usually be recognised as being legitimate, at least unless there are weighty reasons to the contrary in the general interest or in the interest of third parties (see Cakarevic, cited above, § 56, and compare Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, §§ 34 and 39, Series A no. 332, and Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02

  Depalle ./. Frankreich - Brosset Triboulet u. a. ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 4558/20

  The Court reiterates that the concept of "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has an autonomous meaning which is not limited to ownership of material goods and is independent from the formal classification in domestic law: certain other rights and interests constituting assets can also be regarded as "property rights", and thus as "possessions" for the purposes of this provision (see Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 62, ECHR 2010, and Cakarevic v. Croatia, no. 48921/13, § 50, 26 April 2018).