Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CERNIAK v. LITHUANIA

  No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09

  AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 37723/11

  In this connection, the Court also reiterates that within the scheme of the Convention it is intended to be subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 42, ECHR 2008; Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39692/09 and 2 others, § 61, ECHR 2012; and Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 40167/06, §§ 29-32, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 17467/07

  PAUKSTIS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 37723/11

  In this connection, the Court takes note of the Government's position that the cooperation of applicants with the public authorities in the restitution process is of key importance when determining the proportionality of the interference with their property rights (see paragraph 29 above; see also Paukstis v. Lithuania, no. 17467/07, §§ 85-86, 24 November 2015, and Valanciene v. Lithuania, no. 2657/10, §§ 71-72, 18 April 2017).
• EGMR, 18.04.2017 - 2657/10

  VALANCIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 37723/11

  In this connection, the Court takes note of the Government's position that the cooperation of applicants with the public authorities in the restitution process is of key importance when determining the proportionality of the interference with their property rights (see paragraph 29 above; see also Paukstis v. Lithuania, no. 17467/07, §§ 85-86, 24 November 2015, and Valanciene v. Lithuania, no. 2657/10, §§ 71-72, 18 April 2017).

• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 70520/10

  BEINAROVIC AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  It is of the view that the third applicant was expected to cooperate with the authorities and make a choice - indeed, the Court previously found that where the applicants had refused to participate in the restitution process in accordance with domestic law, the delay in the restoration of their property rights could not be considered the responsibility of the authorities (see §§ 162-63 of the principal judgment, and Cerniak v. Lithuania [Committee], no. 37723/11, §§ 34-35, 18 December 2018).