Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEKIC v. SLOVENIA

  Remainder inadmissible;No 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;Possessions) (englisch)

Sonstiges (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  LEKIC v. SLOVENIA

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

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Lekic v. Slovenia

  [14.03.2018]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Sonstiges)

  Annonce d'un arrêt de Grande Chambre dans l'affaire Lekic c. Slovénie

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Sonstiges)

  Forthcoming Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Lekic v. Slovenia

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 36480/07
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 36480/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12129/86

  HENNINGS v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 36480/07

  Having regard to the above considerations (see paragraphs 92-94 above), the Court agrees that the applicant's failure to appeal against either the decision to institute strike-off proceedings or the strike-off decision was attributable to his own lack of diligence, given that he could reasonably have expected that strike-off proceedings would be brought against company L.E. and, either by himself or together with the other members of the company, he could have taken the necessary steps to collect its mail (see Hennings v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 26, Series A no. 251-A).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 36480/07

  It is true that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 contains no explicit procedural requirements and the absence of judicial review does not amount, in itself, to a violation of that provision (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 50, Series A no. 192, and S.C. Antares Transport S.A. and S.C. Transroby S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 27227/08, § 46, 15 December 2015).
• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  JOKELA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 36480/07

  In ascertaining whether that condition has been satisfied, a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable judicial and administrative procedures (see Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV with further references, and Stolyarova v. Russia, no. 15711/13, § 43, 29 January 2015).

 
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 36480/07

  The second and third rules, which are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, must be read in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52, and Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 77, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 15711/13

  STOLYAROVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 36480/07

  In ascertaining whether that condition has been satisfied, a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable judicial and administrative procedures (see Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV with further references, and Stolyarova v. Russia, no. 15711/13, § 43, 29 January 2015).
• EGMR, 15.10.2002 - 55782/00

  CAÑETE DE GOÑII c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 36480/07

  Having regard to the Court's view that the rules governing the formal steps to be taken and the time-limits to be complied with in lodging an appeal are aimed at ensuring a proper administration of justice and compliance, in particular, with the principle of legal certainty, the applicant was entitled to expect those rules to be applied (see Cañete de Goñi v. Spain, no. 55782/00, § 36, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 47316/99

  Rechtssache F.-N. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 36480/07

  The Court reiterates that its power to review compliance of impugned acts with national law is limited and it is in the first place for the domestic authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply the domestic law and to decide on issues of constitutionality (see, among many other authorities, Wittek v. Germany, no. 37290/97, § 49, ECHR 2002-X; Forrer-Niedenthal v. Germany, no. 47316/99, § 39, 20 February 2003, and The Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, § 82, ECHR 2000 XII).
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 528/02

  POKIS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 36480/07

  In this connection, the Court has reached an affirmative conclusion, inter alia, in cases where the impugned measures had a direct bearing on the rights inherent in owning stocks or shares, as is the case with the cancelling of shares or the obligation to exchange them at a disadvantageous rate (see Olczak v. Poland (dec.), no. 30417/96, §§ 60-62, ECHR 2002-X, and Pokis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 528/02, ECHR 2006-XV).
• EGMR, 02.04.2014 - 38238/04

  FORMINSTER ENTERPRISES LIMITED CONTRE LA RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 36480/07

  In the instant case the Court considers that the complaint about the lack of an effective judicial procedure for challenging the strike-off, which was raised by the applicant under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, is closely linked to the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and may accordingly be examined as part of the latter complaint (see, mutatis mutandis, Forminster Enterprises Limited v. the Czech Republic, no. 38238/04, § 59, 9 October 2008).