Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 54999/00, 53991/00 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,33938) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 54999/00, 53991/00
- EGMR, 21.11.2002 - 54999/00
- EGMR, 27.02.2003 - 54999/00
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 09.11.1999 - 37595/97
Rücknahme der Zulassung als Rechtsanwalt auf Grund vorheriger Tätigkeit als …
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 54999/00
The Court points out that "Article 1 in substance guarantees the right of property... It 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 by enforcing such laws as they deem necessary in the general interest... However, the three rules are not "distinct" in the sense of being unconnected: the second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule..." (see, among many other authorities, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, p. 17, § 48, Döring v. Germany (dec.), no. 37595/97, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Schmelzer v. Germany (dec.), no. 45176, 12 December 2000). - EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87
RAIMONDO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 54999/00
In the Court's view, the interference complained of therefore constituted a control of the use of property to be considered under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see AGOSI cited above, p. 17, § 51, and Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 16, § 29). - EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84
TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 54999/00
In the Court's opinion, this was not an arbitrary interpretation and it reiterates in that connection that its power to review domestic law is limited and it is in the first place for the national authorities to interpret and apply that law (see, among other authorities, Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag v. Sweden, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, p. 23, § 58). - EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 54999/00
This sentence has been interpreted by the Court as including the requirement that a measure of interference should strike a "fair balance" between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 26, § 69, and James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 34, § 50). - EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80
AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 54999/00
The Court points out that "Article 1 in substance guarantees the right of property... It 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 by enforcing such laws as they deem necessary in the general interest... However, the three rules are not "distinct" in the sense of being unconnected: the second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule..." (see, among many other authorities, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, p. 17, § 48, Döring v. Germany (dec.), no. 37595/97, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Schmelzer v. Germany (dec.), no. 45176, 12 December 2000).