Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 15.05.2001 - 58752/00 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ABRIAL and OTHERS v. FRANCE
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ABRIAL ET AUTRES contre la FRANCE
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
Irrecevable (französisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2001 - 58752/00
The Court reiterates that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in substance guarantees the right of property and comprises three distinct rules: the first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of the peaceful enjoyment of property; the second rule, contained in the second sentence of the first paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and subjects it to certain conditions; the third rule, stated in the second paragraph, recognises that the Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest (see, among other authorities, the Marcks v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 28, § 64, and the Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 24, § 61). - EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
MARCKX v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2001 - 58752/00
The Court reiterates that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in substance guarantees the right of property and comprises three distinct rules: the first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of the peaceful enjoyment of property; the second rule, contained in the second sentence of the first paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and subjects it to certain conditions; the third rule, stated in the second paragraph, recognises that the Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest (see, among other authorities, the Marcks v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 28, § 64, and the Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 24, § 61). - EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 15287/89
BEAUMARTIN c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2001 - 58752/00
It follows that those two texts gave rise to a right of the applicants to compensation which can be considered as a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, the Beaumartin v. France judgment of 24 November 1994, Series A no. 296-B, § 28). - EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80
LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2001 - 58752/00
Lastly, the terms and conditions of compensation of the holders of the Russian bonds do not show a total lack of compensation which could only be justified by exceptional circumstances (see the Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 50, § 121, and the Thivet v. France decision, no. 57071/00, Section III, 24 October 2000).
- EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 42269/12
KANDYRINE DE BRITO PAIVA c. FRANCE
Il est renvoyé à la partie droit interne des décisions De Dreux-Breze c. France (no 57969/00, 15 mai 2001), Abrial et autres c. France (no 58752/00, CEDH 2001-VI), et Corblet de Fallerans c. France (no 50166/08, 19 octobre 2010).La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà été amenée à se prononcer sur la question de l'indemnisation des porteurs d'emprunts russes au regard de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1, d'une part, dans les décisions De Dreux-Breze c. France (no 57969/00, 15 mai 2001) et Abrial et autres c. France (no 58752/00, CEDH 2001-VI) où elle a estimé que les requérants pouvaient se prévaloir d'un droit à indemnisation en vertu de l'accord de 1997 et de la loi de finances de 1999.
- EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 50166/08
CORBLET DE FALLERANS c. FRANCE
Il est renvoyé à la partie droit interne des décisions Thivet c. France (no 57071/00, 15 mai 2001), De Dreux-Breze c. France (no 57969/00, 15 mai 2001) et Abrial et autres c. France (no 58752/00, CEDH 2001-VI).La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà été amenée à se prononcer sur la question de l'indemnisation des porteurs d'emprunts russes au regard de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 dans les décisions Thivet c. France (no 57071/00, 15 mai 2001), De Dreux-Breze c. France (no 57969/00), 15 mai 2001) et Abrial et autres c. France (no 58752/00, CEDH 2001-VI) où elle a estimé que les requérants pouvaient se prévaloir d'un droit à indemnisation en vertu de l'accord de 1997 et de la loi de finances de 1999.