Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 34162/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,56482) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
TRIFUNOVIC v. CROATIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 7, Art. 8, Art. 6 Abs. 1+8, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13+8, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79
Minelli ./. Schweiz
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 34162/06
This may be so even in the absence of any formal finding; it suffices that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court regards the accused as guilty." (see Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, p. 18, § 37). - EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98
GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 34162/06
"Possessions" can be "existing possessions" or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised, that is that he or she will obtain effective enjoyment of a property right (see, inter alia, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, ECHR 2002-VII, § 69, and Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004-IX).
- EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 50853/06
KVASNEVSKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
As regards the "specially protected tenancies" in Croatia, the Court held that an applicant who had met all the legal conditions for acquiring the right to purchase a flat had a claim that had sufficient basis in national law to qualify as an "asset" and thus a "possession" under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, §§ 40-45, 29 March 2011; contrast with Gacesa v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43389/02, 1 April 2008, and Trifunovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 34162/06, 6 November 2008, where the applicants had no claim under domestic law to purchase the flat at issue).