Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 27227/08 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
S.C. ANTARES TRANSPORT S.A. AND S.C. TRANSROBY S.R.L. v. ROMANIA
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
SC ANTARES TRANSPORT SA AND SC TRANSROBY SRL v. ROMANIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 27227/08
- EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 27227/08
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 37683/97
IAN EDGAR (LIVERPOOL) LIMITED contre le ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 27227/08
A proper balance between the general interest and the individual's rights will not be found if the person concerned has had to bear an individual and excessive burden (see, for example, Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 37683/97, 25 January 2000, and Lohuis and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 37265/10, § 56, 30 April 2013).In view of the above principles, the Court finds it noteworthy that the applicants" licences were withdrawn without compensation (contrast Pinnacle Meat Processors Company and 8 Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 33298/96, 21 October 1998; and Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I).
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 41108/10
BAJIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 27227/08
An applicant who has made use of a remedy that is apparently effective and sufficient cannot also be required to have tried others that were available but probably no more likely to be successful (see Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V; Asinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, § 50, 21 December 2010 and Bajic v. Croatia, no. 41108/10, § 74, 13 November 2012). - EKMR, 21.10.1998 - 33298/96
PINNACLE MEAT PROCESSORS COMPANY AND 8 OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 27227/08
In view of the above principles, the Court finds it noteworthy that the applicants" licences were withdrawn without compensation (contrast Pinnacle Meat Processors Company and 8 Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 33298/96, 21 October 1998; and Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I). - EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87
PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 27227/08
Regarding this issue, the Court has frequently held that it is primarily for the national authorities, most notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see, among many other authorities, Tre Traktörer AB, cited above, § 58; Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, § 52, Series A no. 222; and Bimer S.A., cited above, § 58). - EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84
TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 27227/08
It therefore considers that, to the extent that any loss of business suffered by the applicant companies resulted from the withdrawal of the licences in question, this interference with their possessions amounts rather to a measure of "control of the use" of property, which falls to be examined under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, than a de facto "deprivation of possessions" (see Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, § 55, Series A no. 159, and Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, §§ 88-89, 13 March 2012).