Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TURGUT ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Exceptions préliminaires rejetées (ratione temporis délai de six mois non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Violation de P1-1 Satisfaction équitable réservée (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TURGUT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objections dismissed (ratione temporis six month period non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of P1-1 Just satisfaction reserved (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 1411/03
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 1411/03
• EGMR, 06.06.2012 - 1411/03
• EGMR - 1411/03

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 23.10.2003 - 42741/98

  CAKAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 1411/03

  For practical reasons, Saffet Günes will continue to be called "the applicant" in this judgment although his heirs are now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI, and Çakar v. Turkey, no. 42741/98, § 2, 23 October 2003).
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 49908/99

  ANSAY ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 1411/03

  Having regard to the reasons given by the domestic courts, the Court considers that the purpose of depriving the applicants of their property, namely to protect nature and forests, falls within the scope of public interest within the meaning of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Lazaridi v. Greece, no. 31282/04, § 34, 13 July 2006, and Ansay v. Turkey (dec.), no. 49908/99, 2 March 2006).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 31282/04

  LAZARIDI c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 1411/03

  Having regard to the reasons given by the domestic courts, the Court considers that the purpose of depriving the applicants of their property, namely to protect nature and forests, falls within the scope of public interest within the meaning of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Lazaridi v. Greece, no. 31282/04, § 34, 13 July 2006, and Ansay v. Turkey (dec.), no. 49908/99, 2 March 2006).

 
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 1411/03

  Since the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are "practical and effective", it has to be ascertained whether the situation amounted to a de facto expropriation (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 76, ECHR 1999-VII; Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 63 and 69-74, Series A no. 52; Vasilescu v. Romania, 22 May 1998, §§ 39-41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III; and N.A. and Others v. Turkey, no. 37451/97, §§ 37 and 39, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 1411/03

  It notes in this regard that while none of the Articles of the Convention is specifically designed to provide general protection of the environment as such (see Kyrtatos v. Greece, no. 41666/98, § 52, ECHR 2003-VI), in today's society the protection of the environment is an increasingly important consideration (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 48, Series A no. 192).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 1411/03

  For practical reasons, Saffet Günes will continue to be called "the applicant" in this judgment although his heirs are now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI, and Çakar v. Turkey, no. 42741/98, § 2, 23 October 2003).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 1411/03

  The Court observes that according to its case-law, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which in substance guarantees the right of property, comprises three distinct rules (see, in particular, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98): the first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of the peaceful enjoyment of property; the second rule, contained in the second sentence of the first paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and subjects it to certain conditions; the third rule, stated in the second paragraph, recognises that the Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest.
• EGMR, 04.09.2019 - 51356/99

  NASTOU CONTRE LA GRÈCE ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 1411/03

  The Court has already held in this connection that the taking of property without payment of an amount reasonably related to its value normally constitutes a disproportionate interference, and a total lack of compensation can be considered justifiable under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 only in exceptional circumstances (see Nastou v. Greece (no. 2), no. 16163/02, § 33, 15 July 2005; Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos.