Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,17628
EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01 (https://dejure.org/2007,17628)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11.01.2007 - 73049/01 (https://dejure.org/2007,17628)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11. Januar 2007 - 73049/01 (https://dejure.org/2007,17628)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,17628) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (5)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

In Nachschlagewerken

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • GRUR 2007, 696
  • GRUR Int. 2007, 901
 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (210)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 67847/01

    LECARPENTIER ET AUTRE c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
    This also applies to cases in which the dispute is between private individuals and the State is not itself a party to the proceedings ( Lecarpentier and Another v. France , no. 67847/01, §§ 48, 51 and 52, 14 February 2006; see also, in connection with Article 6 of the Convention, Cabourdin v. France , no. 60796/00, §§ 28-30, 11 April 2006).

    For the majority of the Court (see paragraph 83 of the judgment), the present case was "mainly about the manner in which the national courts interpreted and applied domestic law in proceedings essentially between two rival claimants", and had therefore to be distinguished (paragraph 82) from cases such as Maurice v. France ([GC] , no. 11810/03), and Lecarpentier and Another v. France (no. 67847/01).

  • EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 60796/00

    CABOURDIN c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
    This also applies to cases in which the dispute is between private individuals and the State is not itself a party to the proceedings ( Lecarpentier and Another v. France , no. 67847/01, §§ 48, 51 and 52, 14 February 2006; see also, in connection with Article 6 of the Convention, Cabourdin v. France , no. 60796/00, §§ 28-30, 11 April 2006).
  • EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
    The Court notes, firstly, that the instant case is distinguishable from the cases in which it found that there had been retrospective intervention by the legislature in relation to a party's proprietary right (see, as the most recent authorities, the cases of Maurice and Lecarpentier cited above; see also Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium , judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332).
     
  • EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

    GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
    Further, the hope that a long-extinguished property right may be revived cannot be regarded as a "possession"; nor can a conditional claim which has lapsed as a result of a failure to fulfil the condition ( Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII).
  • EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03

    MELNITCHOUK c. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
    Thus, their assessment was not flawed by arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention ( Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX; see also, Breierova and Others v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 57321/00, 8 October 2002).
  • EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

    SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
    The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule" (see, among other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, pp. 29-30, § 37, in which the Court reaffirmed some of the principles it had established in its judgment in the case of Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden , 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 24, § 61; see also the Beyeler v. Italy judgment cited above, § 98).
  • EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 19589/92

    BRITISH-AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD c. PAYS-BAS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
    Consequently, the company were denied a protected intellectual property right but were not deprived of their existing property" ( British-American Tobacco Company Ltd v. the Netherlands , Series A no. 331, judgment of 20 November 1995, opinion of the Commission, p. 37, §§ 71-72).
  • EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 18064/91

    HIRO BALANI v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
    The Court did, however, find a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Spanish Supreme Court's failure to examine a ground of appeal by the applicant company alleging noncompliance with the priority rule ( Hiro Balani v. Spain , judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-B, p. 30, § 28).
  • EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

    PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
    The Chamber's findings were also incompatible with the Court's previous case-law on the concept of legitimate expectation, as had been expounded for instance in the cases of Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland (judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222) and Beyeler v. Italy ([GC], no. 33202/96, ECHR 2000-I).
  • EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 31443/96

    BRONIOWSKI c. POLOGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
    The issue that needs to be examined in each case is whether the circumstances of the case, considered as a whole, conferred on the applicant title to a substantive interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Iatridis v. Greece , judgment cited above; Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 100, ECHR 2000-I; and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 129, ECHR 2004-V).
  • EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 53495/09

    Meinungsfreiheit gilt auch für Werbung

    Die Drittbeteiligte ist der Auffassung, dass die vermögensrechtlichen Aspekte des Rechts auf Privatleben anders als das geistige Eigentum (A../. Portugal [GK], Nr. 73049/01, Rdnrn. 66-72, CEDH 2007-I) kein von Artikel 1 des Protokolls Nr. 1 geschütztes Recht darstellen.
  • EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 53649/09

    Meinungsfreiheit gilt auch für Werbung

    63.Die Drittbeteiligte ist der Auffassung, dass die vermögensrechtlichen Aspekte des Rechts auf Privatleben anders als das geistige Eigentum (Anheuser-Busch Inc../. Portugal [GK], Nr. 73049/01, Rdnrn. 66-72, CEDH 2007-I) kein von Artikel 1 des Protokolls Nr. 1 geschütztes Recht darstellen.
  • EGMR, 22.02.2018 - 588/13

    Libert ./. Frankreich - Durchsuchung privater Computerinhalte durch Arbeitgeber …

    La Cour rappelle tout d'abord que c'est au premier chef aux autorités nationales, et notamment aux cours et tribunaux, qu'il incombe d'interpréter le droit interne ; sous réserve d'une interprétation arbitraire ou manifestement déraisonnable (voir, par exemple, Anheuser-Busch Inc. c. Portugal [GC], no 73049/01, § 86, CEDH 2007-I), son rôle se limite à vérifier la compatibilité avec la Convention des effets de pareille interprétation (voir, par exemple, Waite et Kennedy c. Allemagne [GC], no 26083/94, § 54, CEDH 1999-I, et Rohlena c. République tchèque [GC], no 59552/08, § 51, CEDH 2015).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht