Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  B.K.M. LOJISTIK TASIMACILIK TICARET LIMITED SIRKETI v. SLOVENIA

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  B.K.M. LOJISTIK TASIMACILIK TICARET LIMITED SIRKETI v. SLOVENIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 42079/12
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 42079/12

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 42079/12

  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 authorities, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 48, Series A no. 108, and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 185, ECHR 2012).

  Some of these cases (most notably Air Canada v. the United Kingdom (5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A) and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom (24 October 1986, Series A no. 108)) are referred to in the judgment.

• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 42079/12

  Therefore, it constituted an instance of control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which authorises States to enact "such laws as [they deem] necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest" (see, for example, Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, §§ 33 and 34, Series A no. 316-A, and Yildirim v. Italy ((dec.), no. 38602/02, 10 April 2003).

  Some of these cases (most notably Air Canada v. the United Kingdom (5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A) and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom (24 October 1986, Series A no. 108)) are referred to in the judgment.

• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 42079/12

  The Court enjoys certain discretion in the exercise of the power conferred by Article 41, as is borne out by the adjective "just" and the phrase "if necessary" in its text (see Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 114, Series A no. 39).

 
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 42079/12

  The Court, reiterating that the only remedies which an applicant is required to exhaust are those that relate to the breaches alleged and which are at the same time available and sufficient (see Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III), thus takes the view that the applicant company's choice of legal remedies was reasonable.
• EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

  CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 42079/12

  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 authorities, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 48, Series A no. 108, and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 185, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 42079/12

  In other words, the Court must determine whether a balance was struck between the demands of the general interest and the interest of the individual or individuals concerned (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69 and 73, Series A no. 52, and James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 50, Series A no. 98).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 42079/12

  Article 35 of the Convention must be applied in a manner corresponding to the reality of the applicant's situation in order to guarantee the effective protection of the rights and freedoms in the Convention (see, among other authorities, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 23, Series A no. 32, and R.B. v. Hungary, no. 64602/12 § 60, 12 April 2016).
• EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 28078/95

  C.M. c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 42079/12

  Therefore, recognising the need for effective strategies to reduce drug trafficking, the Court accepts that they may involve adverse consequences for the property of third persons (see Air Canada, cited above, §§ 41-42, and C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, ECHR 2001-VII).
• EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 64602/12

  R.B. v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 42079/12

  Article 35 of the Convention must be applied in a manner corresponding to the reality of the applicant's situation in order to guarantee the effective protection of the rights and freedoms in the Convention (see, among other authorities, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 23, Series A no. 32, and R.B. v. Hungary, no. 64602/12 § 60, 12 April 2016).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 42079/12

  In other words, the Court must determine whether a balance was struck between the demands of the general interest and the interest of the individual or individuals concerned (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69 and 73, Series A no. 52, and James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 50, Series A no. 98).