Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EPARHIJA BUDIMLJANSKO-NIKSICKA AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO

  Art. 6, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26501/05

  In accordance with the relevant case-law, in particular Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, 10 July 2002, the State enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in deciding whether to exclude from the restitution process certain categories of legal subjects (pravnih subjekata).

  On the other hand, the hope that a long-extinguished property right may be revived cannot be regarded as a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; nor can a conditional claim which has lapsed as a result of the failure to fulfil the condition (see, for example, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, 10 July 2002, § 69, as well as Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII).

• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26501/05

  On the other hand, the hope that a long-extinguished property right may be revived cannot be regarded as a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; nor can a conditional claim which has lapsed as a result of the failure to fulfil the condition (see, for example, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, 10 July 2002, § 69, as well as Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 01.03.2002 - 48778/99

  KUTIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26501/05

  In this respect they referred in particular to Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 70, ECHR 1999-V, and Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II. Such attitude could not be considered to be within the respondent State's wide margin of appreciation but rather a miscarriage of justice, amounting to a violation of Articles 6, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

 
• EGMR, 02.03.2005 - 71916/01

  Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetzes über die Wiedergutmachung von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26501/05

  71916/01, 71917/01 and 10260/02, ECHR 2005-V, the Government submitted that Article 1 of Protocol No.1 did not guarantee the right to obtain property, and that a "legitimate expectation" must be based on something more than a mere hope.
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26501/05

  In this respect, the Government referred in particular to Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, ECHR 2006-III.
• EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 43775/05

  BATA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26501/05

  No "legitimate expectation" can come into play in the absence of a claim sufficiently established to constitute an asset (see Bata v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 43775/05, 24 June 2008).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26501/05

  Article 13 has been consistently interpreted by the Court as requiring a remedy in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, for example, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 31, Series A no. 172).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26501/05

  In this respect they referred in particular to Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 70, ECHR 1999-V, and Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II. Such attitude could not be considered to be within the respondent State's wide margin of appreciation but rather a miscarriage of justice, amounting to a violation of Articles 6, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26501/05

  However, the belief that the law then in force would be changed cannot be regarded as a form of legitimate expectation for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court has consistently considered that there is a difference between a mere hope of restitution, however understandable that hope may be, and a legitimate expectation, 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 judicial decision (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova (dec.) [GC], cited above, § 73, and Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332).

• EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 66529/11

  N.K.M. v. HUNGARY

  However, no "legitimate expectation" can be said to arise where there is a dispute as to the correct interpretation and application of domestic law and the applicant's submissions are subsequently rejected by the national courts (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 50, ECHR 2004-IX; Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 173, ECHR-2012; Eparhija Budimljansko-Niksicka and Others v. Montenegro (dec.), no. 26501/05, §§ 66 to 69, 9 October 2012).
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 49570/11

  GÁLL v. HUNGARY

  However, no "legitimate expectation" can be said to arise where there is a dispute as to the correct interpretation and application of domestic law and the applicant's submissions are subsequently rejected by the national courts (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 50, ECHR 2004-IX; Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 173, ECHR-2012; Eparhija Budimljansko-Niksicka and Others v. Montenegro (dec.), no. 26501/05, §§ 66 to 69, 9 October 2012).