Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 38353/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,30539) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DIACONESCU v. ROMANIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
DIACONESCU v. ROMANIA
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
Budweiser-Streit
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 38353/05
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 other authorities, Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 62, ECHR 2007-I and Potomska and Potomski v. Poland, no. 33949/05, § 40, 29 March 2011). - EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 38353/05
Any interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions must achieve 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, 23 September 1982, § 69, Series A no. 52). - EGMR, 23.11.2000 - 25701/94
Konstantin II.
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 38353/05
In each case involving the alleged violation of this right the Court must, therefore, ascertain whether by reason of the State's action or inaction the person concerned had to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden (see, amongst other authorities, The former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, §§ 89-90, ECHR 2000-XII; Sporrong and Lönnroth, cited above, § 73; Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 150, ECHR 2004-V; Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos.
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 40581/12
PETAR MATAS v. CROATIA
At the same time, we do not want to imply that any restriction of the applicant's rights invariably had to be accompanied by some form of compensation (see Potomska and Potomski v. Poland, no. 33949/05, § 67, 29 March 2011; Fürst von Thurn und Taxis, cited above, § 23; and Diaconescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 38353/05, 17 September 2013).