Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHINNICI v. ITALY (No. 2)

  Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property) Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 22432/03

  Only when these conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, §§ 69 et seq., Series A no. 51; Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 22432/03

  Moreover, as the adequacy of the compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value, such as the lapse of a considerable period of time (see Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 82, Series A no. 301-B, and, mutatis mutandis, Motais de Narbonne v. France (just satisfaction), no. 48161/99, §§ 20-21, 27 May 2003), the Court has held that the initial amount must be updated to offset the effects of inflation, and increased by the amount of statutory interest due (Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], cited above,§ 258. See also, mutatis mutandis, Akkus v. Turkey, 9 July 1997, § 29, Reports 1997-IV and Aka v. Turkey, 23 September 1998, § 48, Reports 1998-VI).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 22432/03

  These rules are not, however, unconnected: the second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions and are therefore to be construed in the light of the principle laid down in the first rule (see, among other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98, which partly reiterates the terms of the Court's reasoning in Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52; see also The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 56, Series A no. 301-A; Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 55, ECHR 1999-II; and Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 106, ECHR 2000-I).

 
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 22432/03

  Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not, however, guarantee a right to full compensation in all circumstances, since legitimate objectives of "public interest" may call for less than reimbursement of the full market value (see Papachelas v. Greece [GC], cited above, § 48; The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, cited above, § 71; Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1986, §§ 50-51, Series A no. 102).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 22432/03

  These rules are not, however, unconnected: the second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions and are therefore to be construed in the light of the principle laid down in the first rule (see, among other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98, which partly reiterates the terms of the Court's reasoning in Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52; see also The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 56, Series A no. 301-A; Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 55, ECHR 1999-II; and Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 106, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 22432/03

  In this regard, the question whether an applicant can claim to be a victim of the violation is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], cited above, § 179 and Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 30, ECHR 2002-III).

• EGMR, 08.09.2015 - 41246/98

  ÜNAL AKPINAR INSAAT SANAYI TURIZM MADENCILIK VE TICARET S.A. c. TURQUIE

  Pour la Cour, cette demande cadre avec les principes dégagés de sa jurisprudence relativement à l'actualisation des sommes en jeu afin de compenser les effets de l'inflation (voir, mutatis mutandis, Chinnici c. Italie (no 2), no 22432/03, § 62, 14 avril 2015, Guiso-Gallisay c. Italie (satisfaction équitable) [GC], no 58858/00, § 105, 22 décembre 2009, et Beyeler, précité, § 23), étant donné que le caractère adéquat d'un dédommagement risque effectivement de diminuer si le paiement de celui-ci fait abstraction d'éléments susceptibles d'en réduire la valeur (Scordino c. Italie (no 1) [GC], no 36813/97, § 258, CEDH 2006-V, Buffalo S.r.l. en liquidation, précité, § 26, et Raffineries grecques Stran et Stratis Andreadis c. Grèce, 9 décembre 1994, § 82, série A no 301-B).
• EGMR, 23.01.2024 - 19501/06

  GUISO GALLISAI v. ITALY

  In another case, in light of a considerable change that had occurred in the monetary depreciation in the country over a period of twenty-two years, the expropriation compensation awarded, which did not account for inflation, was not capable of making good the loss sustained (see Chinnici v. Italy (no. 2), no. 22432/03, §§ 45-46, 14 April 2015).
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 13447/07

  CARÉ AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Nonetheless, the Court has held that the adequacy of the compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value, such as the lapse of a considerable period of time (see Demiray v. Türkiye, no. 61380/15, § 60, 18 April 2023; Scordino (no. 1), cited above, § 258; and Chinnici v. Italy (no. 2), no. 22432/03, § 43, 14 April 2015).
• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 52473/07

  CONSORCASA REGIONE LAZIO SOCIETA' COOPERATIVA EDILIZIA S.C.A.R.L. AND OTHERS v. …

  The relevant domestic law and practice relating to the occupation of land have been summarised in Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) ([GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 56-61, ECHR 2006-V) and Chinnici v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 22432/03, §§ 23-24, 14 April 2015).
• EGMR - 62222/14 (anhängig)

  DIMO AND OTHERS v. ITALY and 11 other applications7880479

  Has there been a violation of the applicants' right to property contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, were the applicants made to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden on account of the failure to adjust the compensation awarded to them for inflation (see Chinnici v. Italy (no. 2), no. 22432/03, §§ 44-46, 62-63, 14 April 2015)?.