Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHERKUN v. UKRAINE

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CHERKUN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 59184/09

  However, even assuming, for the sake of argument and in the applicant's favour, that there was an interference with her rights under Article 8, given her incomplete and contradictory submissions regarding the severity of that interference, the wide margin of appreciation the States enjoy in planning matters (see, for example, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 69, Series A no. 52, and Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, § 75, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV) and the fact that the applicant's own failure to obtain title to her land contributed to her inability to oppose the relevant planning decisions at domestic level (see paragraph 26 above), the Court does not consider that an arguable case has been made that there has been a breach of Article 8.
• EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 12750/87

  PHILIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 59184/09

  The applicant's case does not concern the situation where her right recognised under domestic law can only be asserted by someone else (see Philis v. Greece (no. 1), 27 August 1991, §§ 60-66, Series A no. 209) but rather a situation where she has no substantive right to ask for demolition of illegal construction and only public authorities have the right to do so.
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 44912/98

  KOPECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 59184/09

  However, the right to acquire possessions is not guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as such (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004-IX) and nothing indicates that the applicant could claim to have a "legitimate expectation" to obtain that land.

• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 28799/21

  HEMMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  However, in the present case the applicant has not demonstrated that the loss of light to her kitchen was serious enough to affect adversely, to a sufficient extent, her enjoyment of the amenities of her home and the quality of her private and family life (see, for example, Cherkun v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 59184/09, § 80, 12 March 2019).