Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SZKÓRITS v. HUNGARY

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Szkórits v. Hungary

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SZKÓRITS v. HUNGARY

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 58171/09

  In this respect, the Court recalls that, where several remedies are available, the applicant is not required to pursue more than one (see Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14), and it is normally that individual's choice as to which (see, mutatis mutandis, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 23, Series A no. 32).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 58171/09

  The Court reiterates that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 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 Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52).
• EGMR, 23.11.2000 - 25701/94

  Konstantin II.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 58171/09

  Furthermore, 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 action or inaction the person concerned had to bear a disproportionate burden (see Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, §§ 88-89, ECHR 2000-XII).

• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  It has previously held that where several remedies are available, the applicant is not required to pursue more than one and it is normally for an applicant to make a choice as to which of the available remedies to pursue (see Koprivnikar v. Slovenia, no. 67503/13, § 35, 24 January 2017; Szkórits v. Hungary, no. 58171/09, § 23, 16 September 2014; Abdi v. the United Kingdom, no. 27770/08, § 50, 9 April 2013; and Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009).