Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HAN AARTS B.V. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 23780/08

  MALIK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 43768/17

  On the basis of an elaborate reasoning referring to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and with reference to the Court's established case-law under this provision (Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101; Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159; Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192; Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, 13 March 2012; Vékony v. Hungary, no. 65681/13, 13 January 2015; and Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, 21 April 2016), the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the case did not concern a de facto deprivation of possessions but should rather be regarded as a form of control over the use of property, since the fur farmers remained in possession of their assets and could continue to operate in a profitable manner during the transitional period.

  The Court would first confirm its well-established case-law that any complaint of a loss of "goodwill" in the form of future income falls outside the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for instance, Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, §§ 88-93, 13 March 2012, and Tipp 24 AG v. Germany (dec.), no. 21252/09, §§ 25-26 with further references, 27 November 2012) and it has found no reasons in the present case to reach a different finding.

• EGMR, 26.06.1986 - 8543/79

  VAN MARLE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 43768/17

  On the basis of an elaborate reasoning referring to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and with reference to the Court's established case-law under this provision (Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101; Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159; Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192; Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, 13 March 2012; Vékony v. Hungary, no. 65681/13, 13 January 2015; and Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, 21 April 2016), the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the case did not concern a de facto deprivation of possessions but should rather be regarded as a form of control over the use of property, since the fur farmers remained in possession of their assets and could continue to operate in a profitable manner during the transitional period.
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 43768/17

  On the basis of an elaborate reasoning referring to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and with reference to the Court's established case-law under this provision (Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101; Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159; Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192; Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, 13 March 2012; Vékony v. Hungary, no. 65681/13, 13 January 2015; and Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, 21 April 2016), the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the case did not concern a de facto deprivation of possessions but should rather be regarded as a form of control over the use of property, since the fur farmers remained in possession of their assets and could continue to operate in a profitable manner during the transitional period.

 
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 37683/97

  IAN EDGAR (LIVERPOOL) LIMITED contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 43768/17

  On the basis of an elaborate reasoning referring to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and with reference to the Court's established case-law under this provision (Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101; Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159; Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192; Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, 13 March 2012; Vékony v. Hungary, no. 65681/13, 13 January 2015; and Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, 21 April 2016), the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the case did not concern a de facto deprivation of possessions but should rather be regarded as a form of control over the use of property, since the fur farmers remained in possession of their assets and could continue to operate in a profitable manner during the transitional period.
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84

  TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 43768/17

  On the basis of an elaborate reasoning referring to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and with reference to the Court's established case-law under this provision (Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101; Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159; Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192; Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, 13 March 2012; Vékony v. Hungary, no. 65681/13, 13 January 2015; and Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, 21 April 2016), the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the case did not concern a de facto deprivation of possessions but should rather be regarded as a form of control over the use of property, since the fur farmers remained in possession of their assets and could continue to operate in a profitable manner during the transitional period.
• EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 32913/03

  TOPALLAJ v. ALBANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 43768/17

  On the basis of an elaborate reasoning referring to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and with reference to the Court's established case-law under this provision (Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101; Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159; Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192; Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, 13 March 2012; Vékony v. Hungary, no. 65681/13, 13 January 2015; and Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, 21 April 2016), the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the case did not concern a de facto deprivation of possessions but should rather be regarded as a form of control over the use of property, since the fur farmers remained in possession of their assets and could continue to operate in a profitable manner during the transitional period.
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 65681/13

  VÉKONY v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 43768/17

  On the basis of an elaborate reasoning referring to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and with reference to the Court's established case-law under this provision (Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101; Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159; Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192; Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, 13 March 2012; Vékony v. Hungary, no. 65681/13, 13 January 2015; and Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, 21 April 2016), the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the case did not concern a de facto deprivation of possessions but should rather be regarded as a form of control over the use of property, since the fur farmers remained in possession of their assets and could continue to operate in a profitable manner during the transitional period.
• EGMR, 06.02.2003 - 71630/01

  A. W. und andere gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 43768/17

  On the basis of an elaborate reasoning referring to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and with reference to the Court's established case-law under this provision (Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101; Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159; Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192; Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, 13 March 2012; Vékony v. Hungary, no. 65681/13, 13 January 2015; and Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, 21 April 2016), the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the case did not concern a de facto deprivation of possessions but should rather be regarded as a form of control over the use of property, since the fur farmers remained in possession of their assets and could continue to operate in a profitable manner during the transitional period.