Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AMATO GAUCI v. MALTA

  Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of P1-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (26)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

  RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06

  The Court also points out that the grounds on which those differences of treatment are based are relevant in the context of Article 14. However, the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination as set out in Article 14 is not exhaustive (see Rasmussen v Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 34 in fine, Series A no. 87).
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06

  The Court reiterates that discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations (see Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 29865/96

  Diskriminierung türkischer Ehefrauen durch Verpflichtung zur Tragung des Namens …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06

  However, not every difference in treatment will amount to a violation of Article 14. It must be established that other persons in an analogous or relevantly similar situation enjoy preferential treatment and that this distinction is discriminatory (see Unal Tekeli v. Turkey, no. 29865/96, § 49, 16 November 2004).

 
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06

  Indeed, where an issue in the general interest is at stake, it is incumbent on the public authorities to act in good time, and in an appropriate and consistent manner (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 54, ECHR 1999-V; and Broniowski, cited above, § 151).
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 42949/98

  RUNKEE AND WHITE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06

  It therefore considers that interest should be added to the above award in order to compensate for loss of value of the award over time (see Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, nos. 42949/98 and 53134/99, § 52, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

  SPADEA ET SCALABRINO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06

  In each case involving an alleged violation of that Article the Court must therefore ascertain whether by reason of the State's interference the person concerned had to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden (see James and Others, cited above, § 50; Mellacher and Others, cited above, § 48, and Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy, judgment of 28 September 1995, § 33, Series A no. 315-B).
• EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 5596/03

  ROMANCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06

  As such, the interest rate should reflect national economic conditions such as levels of inflation and rates of interest (see, for example, Akkus v. Turkey, 9 July 1997, Reports 1997-IV, § 35; Romanchenko v. Ukraine, no. 5596/03, 22 November 2005, § 30, unpublished; and Prodan v. Moldova, no. 49806/99, § 73, ECHR 2004-III (extracts)).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06

  The purpose of this rule is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10522/83

  Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06

  Referring to Mellacher and Others v. Austria (19 December 1989, Series A no. 169), they recalled that legislation instituting a system of rent control and aiming, inter alia, at establishing a standard of rents for equivalent flats at an appropriate level must, perforce, be general in nature.
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06

  The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99

  BALOGH v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 21.11.1995 - 18072/91

  VELOSA BARRETO c. PORTUGAL

• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 36318/21

  RIZZO AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  The relevant domestic law in connection with the rent laws at issue in the present case is set out in Amato Gauci v. Malta (no. 47045/06, §§ 19-22, 15 September 2009) and Cauchi v. Malta (no. 14013/19, § 22, 25 March 2021).

  Admissibility 17. The Court notes that the applicants' have an arguable claim for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as evidenced by copious case-law to that effect (see, inter alia, Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, §§ 19-22, 15 September 2009, and Cauchi v. Malta, no. 14013/19, § 22, 25 March 2021), as well as the domestic findings in their case at first instance (see paragraph 10 above) and the Court's considerations in that respect (see paragraph 65 below).

• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 50693/20

  MICALLEF AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  As to the merits, the Court refers to its general principles as set out, for example, in Amato Gauci v. Malta (no. 47045/06, §§ 52-59, 15 September 2009).
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 3158/21

  ZAMMIT v. MALTA

  As to the merits, the Court refers to its general principles as set out, for example, in Amato Gauci v. Malta (no. 47045/06, §§ 52-59, 15 September 2009).

 
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 43777/13

  VRZIC v. CROATIA

  In each case involving an alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court must ascertain whether by reason of the State's interference, the person concerned had to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 50, Series A no. 98, and Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 57, 15 September 2009).
• EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 26771/07

  GERA DE PETRI TESTAFERRATA BONICI GHAXAQ v. MALTA

  Indeed, the Court has on various occasions held that various legislation regarding controlled rents in Malta was in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Ghigo v. Malta, no. 31122/05, §§ 69-70, 26 September 2006; Edwards v. Malta, no. 17647/04, §§ 78-79, 24 October 2006; Fleri Soler and Camilleri v. Malta, no. 35349/05, §§ 79-80, ECHR 2006-X; and Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 62, 15 September 2009).
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 50473/20

  GALEA AND BORG v. MALTA

  As to the merits, the Court refers to its general principles as set out, for example, in Amato Gauci v. Malta (no. 47045/06, §§ 52-59, 15 September 2009).
• EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 19840/09

  SHINDLER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  That the applicant may personally have preserved a high level of contact with the United Kingdom and have detailed knowledge of that country's day-to-day problems and be affected by some of them does not render the imposition of the fifteen-year rule disproportionate: while they require close scrutiny, general measures which do not allow for discretion in their application may nonetheless be compatible with the Convention (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 68, Series A no. 98; Twizell v. the United Kingdom, no. 25379/02, § 24, 20 May 2008; Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 71, 15 September 2009; Allen and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 5591/07, § 66, 6 October 2009; Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos, cited above, § 79; and paragraph 103 above.
• EGMR, 12.01.2023 - 76286/14

  PARÍZEK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The Court further notes that Hutten-Czapska v. Poland ([GC], no. 35014/97, ECHR 2006-VIII) and other rent-control-related cases (see, for example, Ghigo v. Malta, no. 31122/05, 26 September 2006; Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, 15 September 2009; Bittó and Others, cited above; and R & L, s.r.o. and Others, cited above) mirror the present case, in which the tenant alleged, inter alia, that the increase in rent to which he was subjected as a consequence of the housing reform was in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 37121/15

  BRADSHAW AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  Moreover, the principle of lawfulness presupposes that the applicable provisions of domestic law are sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in their application (see, mutatis mutandis, Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 147, ECHR 2004-V, and Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 53, 15 September 2009).
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 5591/07

  ALLEN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  However, the Court does not consider that the absolute nature of the rule and the absence of discretion in its application is necessarily inconsistent with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Twizell v. the United Kingdom, no. 25379/02, § 24, 20 May 2008; and Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 71, 15 September 2009).
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 825/21

  ABELA v. MALTA
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 72152/13

  CINDRIC AND BESLIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 15217/20

  BONNICI AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 16680/21

  J&C PROPERTIES LIMITED v. MALTA
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 43675/16

  ZAMMIT AND VASSALLO v. MALTA
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 38111/21

  VASSALLO AND VINCENTI v. MALTA
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 18057/20

  GRIMA AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 52795/20

  VASSALLO v. MALTA
• EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 49378/18

  BARTOLO PARNIS AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 55102/20

  ZAMMIT AND BUSUTTIL v. MALTA
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 48981/17

  ARAMBASIN v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 28711/19

  RADMILLI v. MALTA
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 1175/06

  KASMI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 20287/10

  SALIBA AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 20287/10

  SALIBA AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 37006/13

  GOSOVIC v. CROATIA