Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MOLNAR GABOR v. SERBIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits (ratione temporis) Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of P1-1 ...

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 22762/05

  "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" (which must be of a nature more concrete than a mere hope) 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; Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004-IX).

• EGMR, 17.10.2011 - 60642/08

  ALISIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, CROATIA, SERBIA, SLOVENIA AND

  It is noted that the Court has already dealt with various aspects of the issue of "old" foreign-currency savings in the following cases: Trajkovski v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (dec.), no. 53320/99, ECHR 2002-IV, concerning a Macedonian bank; Kovacic and Others, cited above, concerning the Zagreb branch of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana; Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, 3 November 2009, concerning a Bosnian-Herzegovinian bank; and Molnar Gabor v. Serbia, no. 22762/05, 8 December 2009, concerning a Serbian bank).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 38649/08

  ERDEM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  In view of the above and having regard to the need to strike a fair balance between the general interest of the community and the property rights of the applicants, and of all those in the same situation with them, the Court considers that the means chosen by the domestic authorities in reimbursing Imarbank's depositors were suited to achieving the general interest pursued (see, mutatis mutandis, Trajkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 53320/99, ECHR 2002-IV, and Molnar Gabor v. Serbia, no. 22762/05, § 50, 8 December 2009).
• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 59434/10

  SENDAN v. TURKEY

  In view of the above and having regard to the need to strike a fair balance between the general interest of the community and the property rights of the applicants, and of all those in the same situation with them, the Court considers that the means chosen by the domestic authorities in reimbursing Imarbank's depositors were suited to achieving the general interest pursued (see, mutatis mutandis, Trajkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 53320/99, ECHR 2002 IV, and Molnar Gabor v. Serbia, no. 22762/05, § 50, 8 December 2009).
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 34479/06

  SIMIC v. SERBIA

  The Court has already considered identical legal issues in Molnar Gabor v. Serbia (no. 22762/05, §§ 43-51, 8 December 2009), in which it found, inter alia, no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It has held that, given the dire reality of the Serbian economy at the relevant time and the wide margin of appreciation afforded to State in respect of matters involving economic policy, the impugned legislation, providing for the gradual reimbursement of the funds at issue, struck a fair balance between the general interest of the community and the applicant's persisting legitimate claims to the original savings, as well as the property rights of all others in the same situation as him.