Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PANCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 33158/96

  LAINO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 10911/05

  Having regard to the above finding, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 8 (see, mutatis mutandis, Laino v. Italy [GC], no. 33158/96, § 25, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 07.07.2005 - 41302/02

  MALINOVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 10911/05

  Thus, having regard the case-law in the preceding paragraphs, the crucial issue is whether the applicant had a "legitimate expectation" to get the disputed apartment into his private property (see, mutatis mutandis, Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 44, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 10911/05

  As to the objection compatibility of the applicant's complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ratione personae, which is in fact an objection of a ratione materiae nature, the Court reiterates that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee the right to acquire property (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 48, Series A no. 70, Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004-IX).

• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 14717/04

  BERGER-KRALL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  On the other hand, the Court has an extensive body of case-law in respect of former Soviet Union countries in which it has held that socially protected tenancies amounted to property rights precisely because the legislation enacted after the fall of the communist regime provided for the unconditional privatisation of apartments or houses occupied under such tenancies (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, ECHR 2005-VII, and Panchenko v. Ukraine, no. 10911/05, 10 December 2009).

  It is true that the right to live in a particular property not owned by the applicant does not as such constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Panchenko v. Ukraine, no. 10911/05, § 50, 10 December 2010); however, in the case of Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia (no. 18768/05, §§ 104-108, 27 May 2010), even in the absence of a registered property title, the Court has regarded as a "possession" the right to use a cottage, which was exercised in good faith and with the tolerance of the authorities for more than ten years.

• EGMR, 04.02.2014 - 25376/06

  CENI c. ITALIE

  De même, la Cour précise que le droit d'habiter dans une résidence déterminée, dont on n'est pas propriétaire, ne constitue pas un « bien'au sens de l'article susmentionné (Panchenko c. Ukraine, no 10911/05, § 50, 10 décembre 2010, H.F. c. Slovaquie (déc.), no 54797/00, 9 décembre 2003, Kovalenok c. Lettonie (déc.), no 54264/00, 15 février 2001, et J.L.S. c. Espagne (déc.), no 41917/98, 27 avril 1999).
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 46154/11

  VALLE PIERIMPIÈ SOCIETÀ AGRICOLA S.P.A c. ITALIE

  De même, la Cour précise que le droit d'habiter dans une résidence déterminée, dont on n'est pas propriétaire, ne constitue pas un « bien'au sens de l'article susmentionné (Panchenko c. Ukraine, no 10911/05, § 50, 10 décembre 2010 ; H.F. c. Slovaquie (déc.), no 54797/00, 9 décembre 2003 ; Kovalenok c. Lettonie (déc.), no 54264/00, 15 février 2001 ; et J.L.S. c. Espagne (déc.), no 41917/98, 27 avril 1999).
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 24720/04

  HADZHINIKOLOV v. BULGARIA

  Therefore, the enforcement of a final judgment should not be dissociated from the judicial proceedings and the proceedings are to be examined in their entirety (see, among many others, Estima Jorge v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, § 35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II; Sika v. Slovakia, no. 2132/02, §§ 24-27, 13 June 2006; and Ivan Panchenko v. Ukraine, no. 10911/05, § 55, 10 December 2009).
• EGMR, 04.01.2012 - 68726/10

  BABENKO v. UKRAINE

  Even assuming, as the Government suggested, that it would be possible for the first applicant to privatise the apartment (see, mutatis mutandis, Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 44, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts), and Ivan Panchenko v. Ukraine, no. 10911/05, § 51, 10 December 2009), in the absence of any comments in this respect from the applicants, the Court cannot conclude to what extent such possibility is tangible.