Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BIMER S.A. v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 15084/03
• EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 15084/03

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84

  TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 15084/03

  The Court recalls that, according to its case-law, the termination of a valid licence to run a business amounts to an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of the Protocol (Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag v. Sweden judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, § 55 and Rosenzweig and Bonded Warehouses Ltd. v. Poland, no. 51728/99,§ 48, 28 July 2005).

  Even if, as the Supreme Court of Moldova held, the Order did not give rise to an interference with the "activity" of the applicant company for the purposes of section 40 of the Law of Foreign Investments, or with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Moldova, on the basis that the applicant retained the right to carry on other business activities, it clearly amounted to an interference with the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possession for the purposes of Article 1 of the Protocol (see, for example, Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag v. Sweden, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, § 55).

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 15084/03

  The existence or lack of compensation terms under the relevant legislation may be a material factor in the assessment whether the contested measure respects the requisite fair balance and, notably, whether it imposes a disproportionate burden on an applicant (see, for example, Holy Monasteries (The) v. Greece judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-A, § 71 and, in the specific context of the second paragraph of Article 1, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 57, ECHR 1999­V).
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 15084/03

  In determining whether a fair balance exists, the Court recognises that the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question (see, for example, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, § 52).

• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 37265/10

  LOHUIS AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  However, as the Court has frequently held, it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see, among many other authorities, Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, § 58, Series A no. 159; Fredin (No. 1), cited above, § 50; Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, § 52, Series A no. 222; Jahn and Others, cited above, § 86; and Bimer S.A. v. Moldova, no. 15084/03, § 58, 10 July 2007).