Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  S.C. FIERCOLECT IMPEX S.R.L. v. ROMANIA

  No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  S.C. FIERCOLECT IMPEX S.R.L. v. ROMANIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 21861/03

  HAMER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  The public authorities therefore assume a responsibility which should in practice result in their intervention at the appropriate time in order to ensure that the statutory provisions enacted with the purpose of protecting the environment are not entirely ineffective (see Hamer v. Belgium, no. 21861/03, § 79, ECHR 2007-V (extracts).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  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, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98), which reiterates in part the principles laid down by the Court in Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden (23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52).
• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  The Court reiterates its constant approach that a confiscation measure, even though it involves the deprivation of possessions, constitutes nevertheless control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A; AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 34, Series A no. 108 and Silickiene v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, § 62, 10 April 2012).

 
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  The Court reiterates its constant approach that a confiscation measure, even though it involves the deprivation of possessions, constitutes nevertheless control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A; AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 34, Series A no. 108 and Silickiene v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, § 62, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  The Court has recognised the wide margin of appreciation of the States concerning the measures taken in the sphere of environmental protection from the standpoint of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 44, Series A no. 172; Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1) (18 February 1991, § 48, Series A no. 192; Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222; and Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, §§ 97, 98 and 100, ECHR 2003-VIII).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  The concern to achieve a "fair balance" between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights is reflected in the structure of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a whole and entails the need for a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth, cited above, § 69; and Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 75, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  The Court has recognised the wide margin of appreciation of the States concerning the measures taken in the sphere of environmental protection from the standpoint of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 44, Series A no. 172; Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1) (18 February 1991, § 48, Series A no. 192; Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222; and Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, §§ 97, 98 and 100, ECHR 2003-VIII).
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  The Court has recognised the wide margin of appreciation of the States concerning the measures taken in the sphere of environmental protection from the standpoint of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 44, Series A no. 172; Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1) (18 February 1991, § 48, Series A no. 192; Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222; and Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, §§ 97, 98 and 100, ECHR 2003-VIII).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  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, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98), which reiterates in part the principles laid down by the Court in Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden (23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52).

• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 44460/16

  O'SULLIVAN McCARTHY MUSSEL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. IRELAND

  Public authorities assume a responsibility which should in practice result in their intervention at the appropriate time to ensure that the statutory provisions enacted with the purpose of protecting the environment are not entirely ineffective (see, for example, S.C. Fiercolect Impex S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 26429/07, § 65, 13 December 2016).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 23.11.2023 - C-351/22

  Generalanwältin Capeta: Der Gerichtshof ist nicht dafür zuständig, allgemeine …

  Insbesondere bestätigte der EGMR die Verhängung einer Geldbuße und einer Einziehungsmaßnahme unter Umständen, in denen das klagende Unternehmen seine Tätigkeiten ohne die nach nationalem Recht erforderlichen Genehmigungen ausgeübt hatte, vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 24. April 2017, S.C. Fiercolect Impex S.R.L./Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2016:1213JUD002642907, insbesondere §§ 62 bis 73).