Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ÖNERYILDIZ c. TURQUIE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1,, Art. 8, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 2 sous son volet substantiel Violation de l'art. 2 sous son volet procédural Non-lieu à examiner les art. 6-1 8 et 13 Violation de P1-1 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ÖNERYILDIZ v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1,, Art. 8, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 in its substantive aspect Violation of Art. 2 in its procedural aspect Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 8 and 13 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - Convention ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 48939/99
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 48939/99
• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 48939/99

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (19)

• EGMR, 26.06.1986 - 8543/79

  VAN MARLE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 48939/99

  Although it is true that the determination and identification of a right of property is governed by the national legal system and that the applicant must establish both the exact nature of the right he claims and his prerogative to freely enjoy that right, the Court considers that neither the lack of recognition by the domestic laws of a private interest such as a "right" nor the fact that these laws do not regard such interest as a "right of property", does not necessarily prevent the interest in question, in some circumstances, from being regarded as a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, p. 21, § 53, and Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101, p. 13, § 40).
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 48939/99

  Regarding the pecuniary damage referred to by the applicant, the Court's case-law has established that there must be a clear causal link between the damage claimed and the violation of the Convention and that this may, in appropriate cases, include compensation in respect of financial support (see, among other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 13 June 1994 (Article 50), Series A no. 285-C, pp.
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84

  TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 48939/99

  Although it is true that the determination and identification of a right of property is governed by the national legal system and that the applicant must establish both the exact nature of the right he claims and his prerogative to freely enjoy that right, the Court considers that neither the lack of recognition by the domestic laws of a private interest such as a "right" nor the fact that these laws do not regard such interest as a "right of property", does not necessarily prevent the interest in question, in some circumstances, from being regarded as a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, p. 21, § 53, and Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101, p. 13, § 40).

 
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 48939/99

  It points out that, irrespective of the issue whether the applicant could or could not satisfy the national authorities that the mayors had been guilty of homicide (see paragraph 98 above), he had a right to be given the opportunity of participating effectively in the proceedings in question (see, mutatis mutandis, Kaya, cited above, pp. 330-31, § 107; Güleç v. Turkey, judgment of 27 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1733, § 82; and OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 48939/99

  The Court therefore considers, like the Government (see paragraph 135 above), that the fact that the applicant had occupied land belonging to the Treasury for approximately five years cannot amount to a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, given that there is no evidence in the file from which to conclude that the applicant was entitled to claim a transfer of title to the land in question under section 21 of Law no. 775 (see paragraph 50 above) and that in this respect the hopes he might have entertained (see paragraph 131 above) are of no relevance since Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies only to a person's existing possessions and does not guarantee the right to become the owner of property (see Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 23, § 50, and Zwierzynski, cited above, § 61).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 48939/99

  The fact remains, nonetheless, that the applicant did necessarily incur costs for the work done by his lawyer to represent him in both the written and oral proceedings before the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 210, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 48939/99

  The fact that the applicant was in a position to assess some of the risks, particularly health risks, to his family's existence but failed to complain of those risks to the national authorities cannot absolve the authorities from the responsibility they incurred for letting the members of the Öneryıldız family continue to expose themselves to real and imminent dangers which, even before the rubbish tip began to endanger life, already threatened the sphere of private life - within the meaning of Article 8 - encompassing physical integrity (see, among other authorities, Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, p. 33, § 29), or from failing to comply with their duty to impart information about those specific dangers, of which only they had knowledge, and which the applicant cannot knowingly have accepted at the cost of the death of his relatives.
• EGMR, 21.11.2000 - 27308/95

  DEMIRAY c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 48939/99

  57-58, §§ 16-20; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 137, ECHR 2000-VII; and Demiray v. Turkey, no. 27308/95, § 67, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 23.06.1994 - 16997/90

  DE MOOR c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 48939/99

  This conclusion renders it unnecessary for the Court to rule also on the remedies available under the civil law referred to by the Government (see paragraph 95 above), the aim of which would not essentially have been any different from that of the administrative remedy used by the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, De Moore v. Belgium, judgment of 23 June 1994, Series A no. 292-A, p. 17, § 50).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 48939/99

  The Court has held on several occasions that, with regard to the fundamental right to protection of life, Article 2 entails, in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the death (see, among many other authorities, Kaya v. Turkey, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, pp. 324 and 329-30, §§ 86 and 105-07) and the putting in place of effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions (Kılıc v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 62, ECHR 2000-III; Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 85, ECHR 2000-III, and Osman, cited above, p. 3159, § 115; concerning Article 8, see X. and Y. v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91, p. 13, § 27).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93

  KILIÇ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10126/82

  Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  OZGUR GUNDEM c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 18.01.2001 - 27238/95

  CHAPMAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 26129/95

  TANLI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 18.11.2010 - 18990/07

  CONSORTS RICHET ET LE BER c. FRANCE

  Rapprochant la présente espèce de l'affaire Öneryıldız c. Turquie du 18 juin 2002 (no 48939/99), ils font valoir que l'existence de biens à protéger peut porter sur des biens qui ne font l'objet d'aucun titre de propriété, et même qui contreviendraient en eux-mêmes au droit interne de l'urbanisme.

  La tâche de la Cour est donc de rechercher si, à la lumière des circonstances de l'espèce, les requérants peuvent se prétendre titulaires de «biens» et en particulier de «droits de construire» au sens de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (voir notamment Öneryıldız c. Turquie [GC], no 48939/99, § 124, CEDH 2004-XII).