Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOPECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOPECKÝ c. SLOVAQUIE

  Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation de P1-1 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement partiel frais et dépens (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.02.2001 - 44912/98
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 44912/98
• EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 44912/98

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 44912/98

  Par contre, l'espoir de voir reconnaître la survivance d'un ancien droit de propriété qu'il est depuis bien longtemps impossible d'exercer effectivement ne peut être considéré comme un « bien'au sens de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1, et il en va de même d'une créance conditionnelle s'éteignant du fait de la non-réalisation de la condition (voir le récapitulatif des principes pertinents dans Malhous c. République tchèque (déc.) [GC], no 33071/96, 13 décembre 2000, CEDH 2000-XII, et dans Gratzinger et Gratzingerova c. République tchèque (déc.) [GC], no 39794/98, § 69, à paraître dans le Recueil CEDH 2002, y compris les références qui s'y trouvent citées).
• KAG Münster, 12.07.2010 - 28/09

  Einführung einer Verteilung der Dienstzeiten auf 5,5 Tage-Woche; Verstoß gegen §§ …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 44912/98

  28/09/2004.
• EKMR, 04.03.1996 - 23131/93

  BREZNY and BREZNY contre la REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 44912/98

  A cet égard, la présente espèce doit être distinguée aussi bien des affaires Malhous c. République tchèque et Gratzinger et Gratzingerova c. République tchèque précitées que de l'affaire Brezny & Brezny c. Slovaquie (requête no 23131/93, décision de la Commission du 4 mars 1996, DR 85, pp. 65-83), dans lesquelles la Cour et la Commission respectivement avaient estimé que les demandes de restitution formées par les requérants ne reposaient pas sur une espérance légitime au sens de la jurisprudence de la Cour.

• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  In conclusion, while it is true that from the ratification date onwards all of the State's acts and omissions must conform to the Convention (see YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 40, Series A no. 319-A), the Convention imposes no specific obligation on the Contracting States to provide redress for wrongs or damage caused prior to that date (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 38, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 31933/08

  CADEK AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The Court reiterates that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not impose any restrictions on the Contracting States" freedom to determine the scope and conditions of property restitution for possessions taken before they ratified the Convention (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 8585/13

  PIEKARSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  The right to compensation for damage or wrongs caused prior to the entry into force of the Convention with respect to the Contracting Party concerned is not, as such, guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 38, ECHR 2004-IX and Petrova and Valo v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 49103/09, § 44, 5 November 2013).

 
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 45394/06

  KRSTIC v. SERBIA

  In this respect, the Convention imposes no specific obligation on the Contracting States to provide redress for wrongs or damage caused prior to that date (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 38, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 52943/10

  DAMJANAC v. CROATIA

  Or, in other words, whether there was a sufficient legal basis in the Croatian domestic legislation for the applicant to claim the payment of his pension in Serbia (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 54, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 41064/05

  HADZHIGEORGIEVI v. BULGARIA

  On the other hand, once a Contracting State, having ratified the Convention including Protocol No. 1, enacts legislation providing for the full or partial restoration of property confiscated under a previous regime, such legislation may be regarded as generating a new property right protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for persons satisfying the requirements for entitlement (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 27912/02

  SULJAGIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Claims, provided that they have a sufficient basis in domestic law, qualify as an "asset" and can thus be regarded as "possessions" within the meaning of this provision (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 52, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 23662/12

  VUKOVIC v. CROATIA

  The Court further reiterates that the Convention imposes no specific obligation on the Contracting States to provide redress for wrongs or damage caused prior to that date (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 38, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 55213/07

  CULAR v. CROATIA

  In this respect, the Court reiterates that, while it is true that from the ratification date onwards all of the State's acts and omissions must conform to the Convention (see YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 40, Series A no. 319-A), the Convention imposes no specific obligation on the Contracting States to provide redress for wrongs or damage caused prior to that date (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 38, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 17601/12

  SHOVGUROV v. RUSSIA

  While it is true that from the ratification date onwards all of the State's acts and omissions must conform to the Convention (see Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 40, Series A no. 319-A), the Convention imposes no specific obligation on the Contracting States to provide redress for wrongs or damage caused prior to that date (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 38, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 22674/11

  KRIZMANIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.01.2011 - 14336/05

  KAMBUROV v. BULGARIA (II)
• EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 15404/15

  POLACZKIEWICZ AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 60681/17

  SRDIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 39942/13

  CHORBOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.11.2009 - 11363/03

  TANEVA & OTHERS v.
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 31206/02

  FOKAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 30745/03

  PIRKMAJER v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 51211/16

  THE FOUNDATION OF KING PETER I KARADORDEVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 59184/09

  CHERKUN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 272/03

  ALIYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN