Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 58358/00   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2004,45680
EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 58358/00 (https://dejure.org/2004,45680)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.12.2004 - 58358/00 (https://dejure.org/2004,45680)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. Dezember 2004 - 58358/00 (https://dejure.org/2004,45680)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,45680) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    BECVAR AND BECVAROVA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 Inadmissible under P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

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

  • EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 58358/00
    The Court must next determine whether a fair balance was struck between the general interests of the community and the individual's fundamental rights (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 23, § 38).

    However, the Court recalls that a person deprived of property must in principle obtain compensation which is reasonably related to its value, even though the legitimate objectives of public interest may call for the reimbursement of less than the full market value (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 23, § 38, and The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-A, pp. 34-35, §§ 70-71).

  • EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

    VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 58358/00
    The Court recalls that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention may be either "existing possessions" or valuable assets, including claims, under certain conditions (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48).
  • EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10522/83

    Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 58358/00
    It is not for the Court to say whether the legislation represented the best solution, provided that the authorities remain within the bounds of that margin (see, mutatis mutandis, Mellacher and Others v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169, p. 28, § 53).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

    FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 58358/00
    The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 36548/97

    PINCOVÁ ET PINC c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 58358/00
    In these circumstances, and having regard to the State's margin of appreciation, the Court accepts that the deprivation of property experienced by the applicants served not only the interests of the original owners of the house in question, but also the general interests of society as a whole (see, mutatis mutandis, Pinc and Pincová v. the Czech Republic, no. 36548/97, § 51, ECHR 2002-VIII).
  • EGMR, 13.12.2007 - 32457/05

    GASHI v. CROATIA

    The Court recalls that it has already dealt with the question of annulment of contracts of sale under which applicants bought flats they occupied (see Panikian v. Bulgaria, cited above; Pincová and Pinc v. the Czech Republic, no. 36548/97, ECHR 2002-VIII; Becvár and Becvárová v. the Czech Republic, no. 58358/00, 14 December 2004; Netolický and Netolická v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 55727/00, 25 May 2004; Mohylová v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 75115/01, 6 September 2005, and Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht