Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PLECHANOW v. POLAND

  Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Preliminary objections dismissed (ratione temporis ratione materiae ratione personae six month period) Violation of P1-1 Just satisfaction reserved ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 22279/04
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 22279/04
• EGMR, 10.09.2014 - 22279/04

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 22279/04

  Where the proprietary interest is in the nature of a claim it may be regarded as an "asset" only where it has a sufficient basis in national law, for example where there is settled case-law of the domestic courts confirming it (Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 52, ECHR 2004-IX; Draon v. France [GC], no. 1513/03, § 68, 6 October 2005; Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 65, 11 January 2007).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 22279/04

  The concept of "possessions" is not limited to "existing possessions" but may also cover assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he has at least "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right (see, for example, Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 36677/97

  S.A. DANGEVILLE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 22279/04

  Therefore, in the Court's view, the applicants could be considered to have a "legitimate expectation" that their claim would be dealt with in accordance with the applicable laws and, consequently, upheld (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, § 31; S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, § 46 48, ECHR 2002-III).

 
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 22279/04

  Therefore, in the Court's view, the applicants could be considered to have a "legitimate expectation" that their claim would be dealt with in accordance with the applicable laws and, consequently, upheld (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, § 31; S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, § 46 48, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 22279/04

  Where that has been established, the concept of "legitimate expectation" can come into play, which must be of a nature more concrete than a mere hope and be based on a legal provision or a legal act such as a final judicial decision (see Draon, cited above, § 65, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, § 73, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 24846/94

  ZIELINSKI ET PRADAL & GONZALEZ ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 22279/04

  The Court has already held that divergences in case-law are an inherent consequence of any judicial system which is based on a network of trial and appeal courts with authority over the area of their territorial jurisdiction, and that the role of a supreme court is precisely to resolve conflicts between decisions of the courts below (see Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 59, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EKMR, 08.09.1997 - 30229/96

  J. M.F. ET AUTRES contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 22279/04

  After ratification, the State's acts must conform to the Convention or its Protocols and subsequent facts fall within the Court's jurisdiction even where they are merely extensions of an already existing situation (see, for example, Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 29813/96

  ALMEIDA GARRETT, MASCARENHAS FALCAO AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 22279/04

  After ratification, the State's acts must conform to the Convention or its Protocols and subsequent facts fall within the Court's jurisdiction even where they are merely extensions of an already existing situation (see, for example, Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 20.07.2006 - 30431/03

  VAJAGIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 22279/04

  Therefore, in so far as the applicants" complaints are directed against the acts and omissions of the State in relation to the enforcement of the compensation claim to which they were entitled under Polish law - an entitlement which continued to exist after 10 October 1994 having regard to the above-mentioned 1999 ruling - the Court has temporal jurisdiction to entertain that complaint (cf. Broniowski v. Poland (dec.) [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 75-76, ECHR 2002-X; Vajagic v. Croatia, no. 30431/03, § 24, 20 July 2006).
• EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 55631/00

  O.B. HELLER, A.S. c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 22279/04

  While they have a wide margin of appreciation in assessing the existence of a problem of public concern warranting specific measures and in implementing social and economic policies (see Kopecký, cited above, § 37), where an issue in the general interest is at stake it is incumbent on the public authorities to act in good time, in an appropriate manner and with utmost consistency (see Beyeler, cited above, §§ 110 in fine, 114 and 120 in fine; Broniowski, cited above, § 151; Sovtransavto Holding, cited above, §§ 97-98; Novoseletskiy v. Ukraine, no. 47148/99, § 102, ECHR 2005-II; Blücher v. the Czech Republic, no. 58580/00, § 57, 11 January 2005; and O.B. Heller, a.s., v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 55631/00, 9 November 2004).