Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TREIAL v. ESTONIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partly struck out of the list Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 42496/05

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Estonia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-....; Treial v. Estonia, no. 48129/99, 2 December 2003; and Saarekallas OÜ v. Estonia, no. 11548/04, 8 November 2007).
• EGMR, 02.12.2003 - 48129/99

  TREIAL v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 42496/05

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Estonia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-....; Treial v. Estonia, no. 48129/99, 2 December 2003; and Saarekallas OÜ v. Estonia, no. 11548/04, 8 November 2007).
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03

  SULWINSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 42496/05

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).

 
• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 11548/04

  SAAREKALLAS OÜ v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 42496/05

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Estonia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-....; Treial v. Estonia, no. 48129/99, 2 December 2003; and Saarekallas OÜ v. Estonia, no. 11548/04, 8 November 2007).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 42496/05

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be either "existing possessions" (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48) or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31).
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 42496/05

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be either "existing possessions" (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48) or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 42496/05

  The Court emphasises in this context that it has only limited power to review compliance with domestic law (see, for example, Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, p. 16, § 47) as it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see Lukanov v. Bulgaria, judgment of 20 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, p. 543-44, § 41).

• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 16587/10

  KIISA v. ESTONIA

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also Treial v. Estonia (no. 2) (dec.), no. 42496/05, 18 March 2008, and Parfjonov v. Estonia (dec.), no. 6905/09, 29 January 2013).