Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  B. TAGLIAFERRO & SONS LIMITED AND COLEIRO BROTHERS LIMITED v. MALTA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property);Violation of Article 13+P1-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  B. TAGLIAFERRO & SONS LIMITED v. MALTA and 1 other application

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 10.09.2014 - 37546/02

  KEÇECIOGLU AND OTHERS AGAINST TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 75225/13

  A similar situation obtained in the cases of Keçecioglu and Others v. Turkey (no. 37546/02, §§ 28-29, 8 April 2008) and Motais de Narbonne v. France (no. 48161/99, § 19, 2 July 2002).

  Thus, the Court considers that compensation in the present case must be awarded on the lines of that in Motais de Narbonne v. France ((just satisfaction), no. 48161/99, § 20, 27 May 2003), and Keçecioglu and Others v. Turkey ((just satisfaction), no. 37546/02, § 19, 20 July 2010), in which the Court had in its principal judgments found a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of a significant delay between a decision to expropriate property and the undertaking of a project in the public interest which had denied the applicants the appreciation ("plus-value") of their property (see Motais de Narbonne (merits), cited above, § 19, and Keçecioglu and Others (merits), cited above, §§ 28-29).

• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 75225/13

  In certain cases a violation cannot be made good through the mere payment of compensation (see, for example, Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, § 80, 11 June 2009 in connection with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1) and the inability to render a binding decision granting redress may also raise issues (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 115, Series A no. 61; Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 82, Series A no. 116; and Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v. Sweden, no. 62332/00, § 118, ECHR 2006-VII).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 75225/13

  In certain cases a violation cannot be made good through the mere payment of compensation (see, for example, Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, § 80, 11 June 2009 in connection with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1) and the inability to render a binding decision granting redress may also raise issues (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 115, Series A no. 61; Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 82, Series A no. 116; and Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v. Sweden, no. 62332/00, § 118, ECHR 2006-VII).

 
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 75225/13

  The requisite balance will not be struck where the person concerned bears an individual and excessive burden (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69-74, Series A no. 52, and Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 78, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37410/97

  KAMIL UZUN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 75225/13

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and the Court's findings under Articles 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present applications and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see, among other authorities, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 178/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 75225/13

  In certain cases a violation cannot be made good through the mere payment of compensation (see, for example, Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, § 80, 11 June 2009 in connection with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1) and the inability to render a binding decision granting redress may also raise issues (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 115, Series A no. 61; Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 82, Series A no. 116; and Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v. Sweden, no. 62332/00, § 118, ECHR 2006-VII).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 75225/13

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and the Court's findings under Articles 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present applications and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see, among other authorities, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 26771/07

  GERA DE PETRI TESTAFERRATA BONICI GHAXAQ AGAINST MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 75225/13

  The Court reiterates that an applicant is deprived of his or her status as a victim if the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for a breach of the Convention (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-193, ECHR 2006-V; Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq v. Malta, no. 26771/07, § 50, 5 April 2011; and Frendo Randon and Others, cited above, § 34).

• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 37474/21

  CHEMEL AND TABONE v. MALTA

  With regard to the second condition, namely appropriate and sufficient redress, the Court must ascertain whether the measures taken by the authorities afforded the applicants appropriate redress in such a way as to deprive them of victim status (see B. Tagliaferro & Sons Limited and Coleiro Brothers Limited v. Malta, nos. 75225/13 and 77311/13, § 57, 11 September 2018).
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  SCERRI v. MALTA

  Legitimate objectives in the "public interest", such as those pursued in measures of economic reform or measures designed to achieve greater social justice, may warrant reimbursement of less than the full market value (see Tagliaferro & Sons Limited and Coleiro Brothers Limited v. Malta, nos. 75225/13 and 77311/13, § 68, September 2018).
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 38770/17

  MIFSUD AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  75225/13 and 77311/13, § 55, 11 September 2018).

 
• EGMR, 15.04.2021 - 55765/12

  TREYD 2008, TOV v. UKRAINE

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and the Court's findings under Articles 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaint under Article 6 of the Convention (see, for the approach, B. Tagliaferro & Sons Limited and Coleiro Brothers Limited v. Malta, nos. 75225/13 and 77311/13, § 111, 11 September 2018, and the reference therein to Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 57752/16

  GAUCI AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  75225/13 and 77311/13, § 55, 11 September 2018).
• EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 52673/15

  BEZZINA WETTINGER AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  The Court refers to its general principles as set out in B. Tagliaferro & Sons Limited and Coleiro Brothers Limited v. Malta (nos. 75225/13 and 77311/13, §§ 67-69, 11 September 2018).