Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 4809/10 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,42223) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GRAFOV v. UKRAINE
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)
GRAFOV v. UKRAINE
Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 4809/10
- EGMR, 01.07.2020 - 4809/10
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 4809/10
The Court points out that the purpose of the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Convention institutions (see, for example, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999 V). - EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 4809/10
The Court further reiterates that the requisite balance will not be found if the person concerned has had to bear an individual and excessive burden (see, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69 and 73, Series A no. 52). - EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 36548/97
PINCOVÁ ET PINC c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 4809/10
The Court reiterates that the need to correct an old "wrong" should not disproportionately interfere with a new right which has been acquired by an individual relying on the legitimacy of the public authority's action in good faith (see, mutatis mutandis, Pincová and Pinc v. the Czech Republic, no. 36548/97, § 58, ECHR 2002-VIII). - EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 7097/10
GLADYSHEVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 4809/10
The Court further considers that the impugned measures resulting in the deprivation of the applicant of his possessions and a failure to award him compensation (see paragraphs 22 above and 34 below) constituted an interference which falls to be examined in the light of the general rule contained in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, according to which "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions" (see, for a similar approach, Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 106, ECHR 2000-I, and Gladysheva v. Russia, no. 7097/10, § 71, 6 December 2011). - EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 49317/07
MAKSYMENKO AND GERASYMENKO v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 4809/10
In the context of revoking ownership of a property transferred erroneously, the good governance principle may not only impose on the authorities an obligation to act promptly in correcting their mistake (see, for example, Moskal, cited above, § 69), but may also necessitate the payment of adequate compensation or another type of appropriate reparation to its former bona fide holder (see Pincová and Pinc, cited above, § 53; Gladysheva, cited above, § 80 and Maksymenko and Gerasymenko v. Ukraine, no. 49317/07, § 64, 16 May 2013).