Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 6282/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,27410) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BJELAJAC v. SERBIA
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
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Bjelajac v. Serbia
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 6282/06
- EGMR, 08.06.2016 - 6282/06
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 30132/04
ILIC v. SERBIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 6282/06
The relevant provisions of domestic legislation regarding the enforcement of judgments are cited in EVT Company v. Serbia (no. 3102/05, 21 June 2007) and Ilic v. Serbia (no. 30132/04, 9 October 2007).Finally, the Court notes that this conclusion makes it unnecessary to ascertain whether a fair balance has been struck between the demands of the general interest of the community, on the one hand, and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights on the other (see Iatridis v. Greece [GC], cited above, § 58 and Ilic v. Serbia, no. 30132/04, § 75, 9 October 2007).
- EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87
RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 6282/06
The Court reiterates that a "claim" can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 59, Series A no. 301-B), and this was undoubtedly the case here, since both the administrative decision and the court judgment ordered the repairs to the roof to be carried out, while the issue of who was to pay for the repairs was never raised during the enforcement proceedings before the Municipal Court as a result of which the applicant finally managed to have the roof above her flat repaired.