Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WOZNY v. POLAND

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 02.03.2005 - 71916/01

  Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetzes über die Wiedergutmachung von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 70720/11

  71916/01, 71917/01 and 10260/02, § 74, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 70720/11

  In this respect the Court reiterates that according to its well-established case-law, the concept of "possessions" referred to in the first part of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has an autonomous meaning which is not limited to ownership of physical goods and is distinct from the formal classification in domestic law - that is to say, certain other rights and interests constituting assets can also be regarded as "property rights", and thus as "possessions" for the purposes of this provision (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 63, ECHR 2007-I).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 70720/11

  The Court has found on numerous occasions that a "claim" can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see, for example: Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 59, Series A no. 301-B, and Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, § 38, 18 November 2004).
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 17120/04

  BERGAUER AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 70720/11

  However, as the Court has consistently held, in particular within the context of expropriation measures effected by the post- Second World War regulation of property, the deprivation of ownership or another right in rem is in principle an instantaneous act and does not constitute a continuous "deprivation of a right" (see, among many other authorities, Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC] (dec.) no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Smoleanu v. Romania, no. 30324/96, § 46, 3 December 2002; Bergauer and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 17120/04, 13 December 2005; and Von Maltzan and Others v. Germany [GC] (dec.), nos.

• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 23597/11

  CAN v. TURKEY

  Having regard to the fact that Article 14 of the Convention is not autonomous and to the conclusion that the complaint raised under Article 6 of the Convention is incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention, the Court considers that Article 14 cannot apply in the instant case (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, §§ 68, 76, ECHR 2002-VII, and Woźny v. Poland (dec.), no. 70720/11, § 60, 15 December 2015).
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 3145/17

  SILVA CRUZ v. PORTUGAL

  Having regard to the conclusion that the complaint raised under Article 6 of the Convention is incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention, the Court considers that Article 14 cannot apply in the instant case (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, §§ 68 and 76, ECHR 2002-VII, and Wo?ºny v. Poland (dec.), no. 70720/11, § 60, 15 December 2015).