Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YAVASHEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  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)

  Yavashev and Others v. Bulgaria

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 41661/05
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 41661/05
• EGMR, 12.11.2014 - 41661/05

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 73465/01

  TZILEVI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 41661/05

  43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, § 172, 15 March 2007; and Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, § 42 in fine, 3 November 2009).

  48380/99, 51362/99, 60036/00 and 73465/01, § 8, 24 April 2008).

• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 48380/99

  TODOROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 41661/05

  43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, § 172, 15 March 2007; and Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, § 42 in fine, 3 November 2009).

  48380/99, 51362/99, 60036/00 and 73465/01, § 8, 24 April 2008).

• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 51362/99

  ENEVA AND DOBREV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 41661/05

  43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, § 172, 15 March 2007; and Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, § 42 in fine, 3 November 2009).

  48380/99, 51362/99, 60036/00 and 73465/01, § 8, 24 April 2008).

 
• EGMR, 15.03.2007 - 43278/98

  VELIKOVI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 41661/05

  43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, § 172, 15 March 2007; and Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, § 42 in fine, 3 November 2009).

  48380/99, 51362/99, 60036/00 and 73465/01, § 8, 24 April 2008).

• EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 37863/05

  BILOZIR AND RIZOVA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 41661/05

  Nevertheless, the Court considers that the general wording of the 1992 Act, coupled with the municipality's continued recognition of the applicants" title for almost ten years, gave rise to a proprietary interest protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Zwierzynski v. Poland, no. 34049/96, §§ 63-64, ECHR 2001-VI; Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 127-29, ECHR 2004-XII; Bruncrona v. Finland, no. 41673/98, § 79, 16 November 2004; Osman v. Bulgaria, no. 43233/98, §§ 96-97, 16 February 2006; Hamer v. Belgium, no. 21861/03, §§ 75-76, ECHR 2007-V (extracts); Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, §§ 62-68, ECHR 2010-...; Brosset-Triboulet and Others v. France [GC], no. 34078/02, §§ 65-71, 29 March 2010; and Bilozir and Rizova v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 37863/05, 28 September 2010).
• EGMR, 30.04.2002 - 40064/98

  CREDIT BANK and OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 41661/05

  The Court has recognised that the Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation when passing laws in the context of a change of political and economic regime and, in particular, in the context of a transition from a totalitarian state to a democratic society (see Credit Bank and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 40064/98, 30 April 2002; Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 17353/03

  NAYDENOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 41661/05

  The Court is mindful of the fact that in contrast to other cases against Bulgaria, where the recognition of title to restituted property had been made by an authority mandated by law to decide whether the conditions for restitution had been met (see Debelianovi v. Bulgaria, no. 61951/00, § 9, 29 March 2007; Naydenov v. Bulgaria, no. 17353/03, § 68, 26 November 2009; Mutishev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 18967/03, § 123, 3 December 2009; and Lyubomir Popov v. Bulgaria, no. 69855/01, §§ 111 and 117, 7 January 2010), in the instant case no such authority was envisaged by the relevant law (see Ivanova and Others, cited above).
• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 194/02

  NIKOLOVI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 41661/05

  43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, § 172, 15 March 2007; and Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, § 42 in fine, 3 November 2009).
• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 53367/99

  STOYANOVA AND IVANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 41661/05

  43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, § 172, 15 March 2007; and Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, § 42 in fine, 3 November 2009).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 41661/05

  In particular, there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see, among many other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 69, Series A no. 52, and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 93, ECHR 2006-V).
• EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 69855/01

  LYUBOMIR POPOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 05.12.2002 - 44548/98

  THE SYNOD COLLEGE OF THE EVANGELICAL REFORMED CHURCH OF LITHUANIA v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02

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