Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VRZIC v. CROATIA

  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VRZIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 37710/97

  ELIA SRL AGAINST ITALY AND 2 OTHER CASES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 43777/13

  Under the system of protection established by the Convention, it is thus for the national authorities to make a preliminary assessment as to the existence of a problem of public concern warranting measures that interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see Terazzi S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 27265/95, § 85, 17 October 2002, and Elia S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 37710/97, § 77, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 30.08.2007 - 44302/02

  J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LTD ET J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LAND LTD c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 43777/13

  The Court refers to its established case-law on the structure of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and the manner in which the three rules contained in that provision are to be applied (see, among many other authorities, J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, § 52, ECHR 2007-III; Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 44, ECHR 2002-IV; and Zehentner, cited above, § 70).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 43777/13

  However, even in cases involving private litigation, the State is under an obligation to afford the parties to the dispute judicial procedures which offer the necessary procedural guarantees and therefore enable the domestic courts and tribunals to adjudicate effectively and fairly in the light of the applicable law (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 83, ECHR 2007-I; J.A. Pye, cited above, § 57; and Zagrebacka banka d.d. v. Croatia, no. 39544/05, §§ 250 and 251, 12 December 2013).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 27265/95

  TERAZZI S.R.L. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 43777/13

  Under the system of protection established by the Convention, it is thus for the national authorities to make a preliminary assessment as to the existence of a problem of public concern warranting measures that interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see Terazzi S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 27265/95, § 85, 17 October 2002, and Elia S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 37710/97, § 77, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 43777/13

  In determining whether this requirement has been met, the Court recognises that the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 75, ECHR 1999-III; Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 49, ECHR 1999-V; and Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, § 69, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

  ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 43777/13

  The Court, noting that its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, among other authorities, Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (No. 1), 25 October 1989, § 57, Series A no. 163), is thus satisfied that the national courts" decisions ordering the applicants" eviction were in accordance with domestic law (see Cosic, cited above, § 19).
• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06

  AMATO GAUCI v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 43777/13

  In each case involving an alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court must ascertain whether by reason of the State's interference, the person concerned had to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 50, Series A no. 98, and Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 57, 15 September 2009).
• EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 32190/96

  LUORDO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 43777/13

  In determining whether this requirement has been met, the Court recognises that the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 75, ECHR 1999-III; Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 49, ECHR 1999-V; and Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, § 69, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 26.09.2012 - 19009/04

  McCANN AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 43777/13

  The Court has also held that any person at risk of interference with the right to respect for his or her home should in principle be able to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal in the light of the relevant principles under Article 8 of the Convention, notwithstanding that, under domestic law, his or her right of occupation has come to an end (see McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, § 50, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 43777/13

  In determining whether this requirement has been met, the Court recognises that the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 75, ECHR 1999-III; Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 49, ECHR 1999-V; and Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, § 69, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  JOKELA v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.01.2023 - C-598/21

  Vseobecná úverová banka - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Verbraucherschutz - …

  Juli 2016, Vrzic/Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2016:0712JUD004377713).
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 49066/12

  NAFORNITA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  At the same time, reiterating that its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (No. 1), 25 October 1989, § 57, Series A no. 163, and Vrzic v. Croatia, no. 43777/13, § 62, 12 July 2016), the Court will not take a definitive view in this respect, but will instead take into account the above findings in its review of the proportionality of the interference with the applicants' rights.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.02.2021 - C-579/19

  Food Standards Agency

  84 Vgl. Urteile des EGMR vom 3. April 2012, Kotov/Russland (CE:ECHR:2012:0403JUD005452200, Nr. 114), und vom 12. Juli 2016 (Vrzic/Kroatien, CE:ECHR:2016:0712JUD004377713, Nr. 110).

 
• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 11514/18

  TRUMBIC v. CROATIA

  As regards the applicant's argument that the domestic courts had not expressly carried out a proportionality assessment, the Court reiterates that this obligation does not automatically apply in cases where the owner is a private individual or company (see Vrzic v. Croatia, no. 43777/13, § 67, 12 July 2016, and F.J.M. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76202/16, §§ 37-41, 6 November 2018).
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 76202/16

  F.J.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  However, shortly after the Supreme Court judgment was handed down, the Court clarified the position in Vrzic v. Croatia, no. 43777/13, 12 July 2016.
• EGMR - 3249/22 (anhängig)

  JELAVIC v. CROATIA

  Was the second-instance judgment ordering the applicant to vacate the flat in which he was living in breach of his right to respect for his home, guaranteed by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the domestic courts required to carry out a proportionality analysis (compare, for example, Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, 29 May 2012; Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, 22 October 2009; and Cosic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, 15 January 2009, and contrast with F.J.M. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76202/16, 6 November 2018; and Vrzic v. Croatia, no. 43777/13, §§ 59-73, 12 July 2016, and see also Vukusic v. Croatia, no. 69735/11, § 48, 31 May 2016)?.
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 38757/12

  CORBU c. ROUMANIE

  Elle est également d'avis que cette ingérence poursuivait un but légitime, notamment celui tendant à la protection des droits d'autrui, plus précisément ceux du créancier des requérants et de l'adjudicataire de l'appartement (voir, mutatis mutandis, Vaskrsic c. Slovénie, no 31371/12, § 76, 25 avril 2017, et Vrzic c. Croatie, no 43777/13, § 62 in fine, 12 juillet 2016).
• EGMR, 26.09.2017 - 3068/06

  SALIY c. RUSSIE

  Ainsi, la Cour constate que la requérante n'a pas contesté le constat d'insalubrité devant les juridictions internes (voir aussi, mutatis mutandis, Vrzic c. Croatie, no 43777/13, §§ 113-114, 12 juillet 2016).