Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEVANEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

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

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 37683/97

  IAN EDGAR (LIVERPOOL) LIMITED contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 34600/03

  The Court recalls its case-law that goodwill may be an element in the valuation of a professional practice, but that future income itself is only a "possession" once it has been earned, or an enforceable claim to it exists (see Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I, Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101, p. 13, §§ 39-41).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95

  ATHANASSOGLOU ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 34600/03

  The Court considers that the Government's argument is so closely linked to the substance of the applicants" complaints that the preliminary objection should be joined to the merits (see, inter alia, Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 37, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 38881/97

  FINDLATER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 34600/03

  The Court concludes that the complaint thus falls outside the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Findlater v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38881/97, 26 September 2000).

 
• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 34600/03

  Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not aimed at creating new substantive rights without a legal basis in the Contracting State, but at providing procedural protection of rights already recognised in domestic law (see, inter alia, Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 117, ECHR 2005-..., W. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1987, Series A no. 121-A, p. 32-33, § 73).
• EGMR, 26.06.1986 - 8543/79

  VAN MARLE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 34600/03

  The Court recalls its case-law that goodwill may be an element in the valuation of a professional practice, but that future income itself is only a "possession" once it has been earned, or an enforceable claim to it exists (see Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I, Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101, p. 13, §§ 39-41).
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 34600/03

  As the Court has consistently held, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences are not sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see, inter alia, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 21, § 47 and Zander v. Sweden, judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-B, p. 38, § 22).
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 34600/03

  The term "right" must nevertheless be given an autonomous interpretation under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, inter alia, König v. Germany, judgment of 28 June 1986, Series A no. 27, pp. 29-30, §§ 88-89).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 34600/03

  The Court refers on this point to its established case-law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 25, § 45).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84

  TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 34600/03

  Furthermore, while the right to property is clearly a civil right (see, inter alia, Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, § 43) the Court notes its finding above that future income does not fall into the ambit of a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Consequently, the effects of a decision to grant a licence were not established with a degree of probability that made the outcome of the proceedings directly decisive within the meaning of the Court's case-law for the right relied on by the applicants.
• EGMR, 25.11.1993 - 14282/88

  ZANDER v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 34600/03

  As the Court has consistently held, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences are not sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see, inter alia, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 21, § 47 and Zander v. Sweden, judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-B, p. 38, § 22).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

• EGMR, 19.03.2013 - 3674/09

  SOLAKOGLU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Les requérants allèguent que le fait de ne pas pouvoir bénéficier d'un avancement de carrière à partir d'un certain grade impliquera une privation d'augmentation de salaire, ce qui porterait donc atteinte à leur droit de propriété: force est de rappeler qu'un gain futur ne constitue un « bien'que si le gain a été acquis ou fait l'objet d'une créance exigible (voir, Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 37683/97, CEDH 2000-I, Wendenburg et autres c. Allemagne (déc.), no 71360/01, CEDH 2003-II (extraits), et Levänen et autres c. Finlande (déc.), no 34600/03, 11 avril 2006).
• EGMR, 27.10.2015 - 35399/05

  KONSTANTIN STEFANOV v. BULGARIA

  Future income constitutes a "possession" only if the income has been earned or where an enforceable claim to it exists (see Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, 25 January 2000; Wendenburg v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, 6 February 2003; Levänen and Others v. Finland (dec.), no. 34600/03, 11 April 2006; Anheuser-Busch Inc, cited above, § 64; and N.K.M. v. Hungary, no. 66529/11, § 36, 14 May 2013).
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 33200/05

  MEHMET YOLCU c. TURQUIE

  La Cour rappelle que selon sa jurisprudence constante, le revenu futur ne peut être considéré comme un «bien» que s'il a déjà été gagné ou s'il a fait l'objet d'une créance certaine (voir Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no37683/97, CEDH 2000-I, Wendenburg et autres c. Allemagne (déc.), no 71360/01, CEDH 2003-II (extraits), et Levänen et autres c. Finlande (déc.), no 34600/03, 11 avril 2006).
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 3078/05

  GULER c. TURQUIE

  Cependant, la Cour rappelle qu'un gain futur ne constitue un «bien» que si le gain a été acquis ou fait l'objet d'une créance exigible (voir Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 37683/97, CEDH 2000-I ; Wendenburg c. Allemagne (déc.), no 71360/01, CEDH 2003-II ; Levänen et autres c. Finlande (déc.), no 34600/03, 11 avril 2006).
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 7906/05

  BOZ c. TURQUIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'un gain futur ne constitue un «bien» que si le gain a été acquis ou fait l'objet d'une créance exigible (voir Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 37683/97, CEDH 2000-I ; Wendenburg c. Allemagne (déc.), no 71360/01, CEDH 2003-II ; Levänen et autres c. Finlande (déc.), no 34600/03, 11 avril 2006).