Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary and ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BÉLÁNÉ NAGY c. HONGRIE

  Exception préliminaire jointe au fond et rejetée (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Protection de la propriété (article 1 al. 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Privation de propriété;Respect des biens);Dommage matériel et préjudice ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53080/13
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (23)

• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

  The hope that a long-extinguished property right may be revived cannot be regarded as a "possession"; nor can a conditional claim which has lapsed as a result of a failure to fulfil the condition (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, §§ 69 and 73, ECHR 2002-VII).

  By way of example, in a number of cases the Court examined, respectively, whether the applicants had "a claim which was sufficiently established to be enforceable" (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, § 74, ECHR 2002-VII); whether they demonstrated the existence of "an assertable right under domestic law to a welfare benefit" (see Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos.

• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

  One of the lines of case-law on "legitimate expectation" referred to above involved situations where the persons concerned were entitled to rely on the fact that a legal act, on the basis of which they had incurred financial obligations, would not be retrospectively invalidated to their detriment (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, § 51, Series A no. 222; and Stretch v. the United Kingdom, no. 44277/98, § 35, 24 June 2003).

  The Court has acknowledged in its case-law the relevance of the notion of "legitimate expectations" with respect to the concept of "possessions" (see the case-law starting with Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, § 51, Series A no. 222, and Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332).

• EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  PARRILLO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

  The concept of "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has an autonomous meaning which is not limited to ownership of material goods and is independent from the formal classification in domestic law: certain other rights and interests constituting assets can also be regarded as "property rights", and thus as "possessions" for the purposes of this provision (see Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 1999-II; Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 100, ECHR 2000-I; and Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 211, ECHR 2015).

  v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 63, ECHR 2007-I; Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 62, ECHR 2010; Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 171, ECHR 2012; Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, § 49, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 211, ECHR 2015).

 
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

  Although Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies only to a person's existing possessions and does not create a right to acquire property (see Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 82, ECHR 2011), in certain circumstances a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining an asset may also enjoy the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many authorities, Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 65, ECHR 2007-I).

  v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 63, ECHR 2007-I; Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 62, ECHR 2010; Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 171, ECHR 2012; Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, § 49, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 211, ECHR 2015).

• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 26252/08

  RICHARDSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 51, ECHR 2005-X); or whether the persons concerned satisfied the "legal conditions laid down in domestic law for the grant of any particular form of benefits" (see Richardson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 26252/08, § 17, 10 April 2012).

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 51, ECHR 2005-X); or whether the persons concerned satisfied the "legal conditions laid down in domestic law for the grant of any particular form of benefits" (see Richardson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 26252/08, § 17, 10 April 2012).

• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

  The Court has acknowledged in its case-law the relevance of the notion of "legitimate expectations" with respect to the concept of "possessions" (see the case-law starting with Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, § 51, Series A no. 222, and Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332).
• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 9300/07

  Herrmann ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

  In our opinion, therefore, the Grand Chamber should have concluded that it lacks jurisdiction to examine the complaint under Article 8 (see, mutatis mutandis, Herrmann v. Germany [GC], no. 9300/07, § 39, 26 June 2012, and Pentikäinen v. Finland [GC], no. 11882/10, § 81, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 18.02.2009 - 55707/00

  Andrejeva ./. Lettland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

  However, where a Contracting State has in force legislation providing for the payment as of right of a welfare benefit or pension - whether conditional or not on the prior payment of contributions - that legislation must be regarded as generating a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 but it does so only for persons satisfying its requirements (see Stec and Others (dec.), cited above, § 54; Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 77, ECHR 2009; Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010; and Stummer, cited above, § 82).
• EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 34610/97

  DOMALEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

  In a number of cases the Court has endeavoured to assess all the relevant elements against the specific background (see Stefanetti and Others, cited above, § 59, with examples and further references; see also Domalewski, v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

  Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

  The hope that a long-extinguished property right may be revived or that the survival of an old property right which it had been impossible to exercise effectively can be recognised cannot be considered a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII, and the cases referred to; see also Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII; Gratzinger and Gratzingerova, cited above, § 69; Kopecký, cited above, § 35 (c); and Fabris, cited above, § 50).
• EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

  CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 13902/11

  PANFILE v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 15.03.2001 - 30517/96

  AUNOLA v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 38459/03

  ANTONI LEWANDOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

  GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 13341/14

  DA SILVA CARVALHO RICO v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 31443/96

  BRONIOWSKI c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 75255/01

  GOUDSWAARD-VAN DER LANS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 30.09.2003 - 40892/98

  KOUA POIRREZ c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06

  SARGSYAN c. AZERBAÏDJAN
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 37715/13

  DE SOUSA MAGALHÃES ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL

  Sur la requête no 37715/13 64. S'agissant de la requête no 37715/13, la Cour relève que, même si le Gouvernement n'a pas formulé une exception d'irrecevabilité tirée de l'incompatibilité ratione materiae de la requête, rien ne l'empêche d'examiner proprio motu cette question, qui touche à sa compétence (voir, par exemple, Béláné Nagy c. Hongrie [GC], no 53080/13, § 71, CEDH 2016).
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 13112/07

  FELIX GUTU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Elle relève que, même si le Gouvernement n'a pas formulé une exception d'irrecevabilité tirée de l'incompétence ratione materiae du présent grief, rien ne l'empêche d'examiner proprio motu cette question, qui touche à sa compétence (voir, par exemple, Béláné Nagy c. Hongrie [GC], no 53080/13, §§ 113-114, CEDH 2016).