Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EDWARD ZAMMIT MAEMPEL AND CYNTHIA ZAMMIT MAEMPEL v. MALTA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13+P1-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ZAMMIT MAEMPEL v. MALTA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 3356/15

  In certain cases a violation cannot be made good through the mere payment of compensation (see, for example, Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, § 80, 11 June 2009 in connection with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1) and the inability to render a binding decision granting redress may also raise issues (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 115, Series A no. 61; Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 82, Series A no. 116; and Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v. Sweden, no. 62332/00, § 118, ECHR 2006-VII).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 3356/15

  In certain cases a violation cannot be made good through the mere payment of compensation (see, for example, Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, § 80, 11 June 2009 in connection with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1) and the inability to render a binding decision granting redress may also raise issues (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 115, Series A no. 61; Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 82, Series A no. 116; and Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v. Sweden, no. 62332/00, § 118, ECHR 2006-VII).
• EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

  McFARLANE v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 3356/15

  Particular attention should be paid to the speediness of the remedial action itself, it not being excluded that an otherwise adequate remedy could be undermined by its excessive duration McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06 § 123, ECHR 2010).

 
• EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 178/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 3356/15

  In certain cases a violation cannot be made good through the mere payment of compensation (see, for example, Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, § 80, 11 June 2009 in connection with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1) and the inability to render a binding decision granting redress may also raise issues (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 115, Series A no. 61; Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 82, Series A no. 116; and Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v. Sweden, no. 62332/00, § 118, ECHR 2006-VII).
• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 46931/12

  APAP BOLOGNA v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 3356/15

  Moreover, in cases under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, an applicant who has suffered a violation over a long period of time should not be required to pursue a further remedy in order to obtain compensation (see, mutatis mutandis, Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq, cited above, § 53 and Apap Bologna v. Malta, no. 46931/12, § 44, 30 August 2016).
• EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 31102/06

  PAPLAUSKIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 3356/15

  Whether an individual has victim status may also depend on the amount of compensation awarded by the domestic courts and the effectiveness (including the promptness) of the remedy affording the award (see Paplauskiene v. Lithuania, no. 31102/06, § 51, 14 October 2014).

• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 37474/21

  CHEMEL AND TABONE v. MALTA

  The Court further notes that it is true that the Court has sometimes found that the sums awarded in compensation did not constitute adequate redress because applicants were burdened with an order for the payment of the relevant costs (see, for example, Edward and Cynthia Zammit Maempel v. Malta, no. 3356/15, § 72, 15 January 2019, and Zammit and Vassallo v. Malta, no. 43675/16, § 42, 28 May 2019).
• EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 74288/14

  DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS RESOURCE CENTRE AND MUSTAFAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The "effectiveness" of a "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, § 197, ECHR 2012, and Edward and Cynthia Zammit Maempel v. Malta, no. 3356/15, § 66, 15 January 2019).
• EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 8116/19

  KLACANOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA

  Indeed, this would place an excessive burden on her, taking into account that such proceedings could potentially be held before several levels of jurisdiction and would entail supplementary legal costs and expenses (see, mutatis mutandis, Edward and Cynthia Zammit Maempel v. Malta, no. 3356/15, § 85, 15 January 2019).