Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KATONA AND ZÁVARSKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KATONA v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11, Art. 17Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 43932/19

  The Court accordingly accepts that, in the particular circumstances, the first applicant's remaining claim gave rise to a legitimate expectation that it would be treated in the same way as the other claims at stake (see, mutatis mutandis, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332).

  We note that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as interpreted by the Court, does not exclude that certain types of claims may be extinguished, under some circumstances, by general rules, provided that the principle of proportionality is observed (see, for instance, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, §§ 38-44, Series A no. 332).

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 43932/19

  The claims were accordingly sufficiently established to be enforceable, thereby amounting to possessions for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 59, Series A no. 301-B).

  In view of the foregoing considerations, and noting that their deprivation of possessions was accompanied by a total lack of compensation (see The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 71, Series A no. 301 A), the Court concludes that the effects of the legal provisions of the debtor's debt discharge on the applicants placed an excessive individual burden on them.

• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 43932/19

  Rules allowing for exceptions and therefore the de facto transfer of part of the rule-making powers (or standard-setting powers) from the legislator to law-enforcing bodies are not necessarily a better solution than general rules which do not allow for exceptions at all (compare Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 108, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 43932/19

  In these circumstances, and in view of the Convention's aim to guarantee rights that are "practical and effective", the Court is satisfied that the debt discharge entailed sufficiently serious consequences for it to be held that the applicants have been the victims of a de facto deprivation of their possessions (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 63, Series A no. 52).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 43932/19

  It thus considers that the applicants' remaining complaint is admissible but that there is no need to give a separate ruling on it (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 43932/19

  Moreover, the effects of the debt discharge on the applicants' claims stemmed directly from the legal provisions, necessitated no decision (see paragraph 17 above) and, as already established (see paragraphs 36 and 39 above), the applicants had no way of effectively challenging it (see, for example, Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 49, Series A no. 296-A; G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others, cited above, § 303; and Uzan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 19620/05 and 3 others, § 215, 5 March 2019).
• EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 69146/01

  BABYLONOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 43932/19

  This is so in particular since, as already noted, the complaint is essentially about the legal provision itself and not about its interpretation or application (see Jenisová v. Slovakia, no. 58764/00, §§ 58-60, 3 November 2009; see also Babylonová v. Slovakia, no. 69146/01, § 44, ECHR 2006-VIII; L.G.R. and A.P.R. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 1349/12, § 55, 13 May 2014, with further references; and contrast Orange Slovensko, a. s. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 43983/02, 24 October 2006).
• EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 1349/12

  L.G.R. AND A.P.R. v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 43932/19

  This is so in particular since, as already noted, the complaint is essentially about the legal provision itself and not about its interpretation or application (see Jenisová v. Slovakia, no. 58764/00, §§ 58-60, 3 November 2009; see also Babylonová v. Slovakia, no. 69146/01, § 44, ECHR 2006-VIII; L.G.R. and A.P.R. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 1349/12, § 55, 13 May 2014, with further references; and contrast Orange Slovensko, a. s. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 43983/02, 24 October 2006).
• EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 43983/02

  ORANGE SLOVENSKO, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 43932/19

  This is so in particular since, as already noted, the complaint is essentially about the legal provision itself and not about its interpretation or application (see Jenisová v. Slovakia, no. 58764/00, §§ 58-60, 3 November 2009; see also Babylonová v. Slovakia, no. 69146/01, § 44, ECHR 2006-VIII; L.G.R. and A.P.R. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 1349/12, § 55, 13 May 2014, with further references; and contrast Orange Slovensko, a. s. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 43983/02, 24 October 2006).

• EGMR, 26.03.2024 - 13208/20

  MAGDELINIKJ v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  43932/19 and 43995/19, § 60, 9 February 2023; Korporativna Targovska Banka AD v. Bulgaria, nos.