Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 40676/11 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,39553) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SPIRIDONOVSKA AND POPOVSKI v. \
No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property) (englisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SPIRIDONOVSKA AND POPOVSKI v. \
[MAC] No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
SPIRIDONOVSKA AND POPOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 24360/04
GIURAN v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 40676/11
Indeed, according to the Court's case-law, correcting a fundamental defect can be considered as "exceptional grounds" for setting aside a finally determined matter (compare Giuran v. Romania, no. 24360/04, § 48, ECHR 2011 (extracts), and Vikentijevik, cited above, § 72). - EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01
STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 40676/11
The Court will respect the judgment of the national authorities as to what is "in the public interest" unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation (see Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006-VI; see also Vikentijevik, cited above, § 68). - EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84
ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 40676/11
The Court, noting that its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, among other authorities, Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, Series A no. 163, p. 17, § 57), accepts that the proceedings in the applicants" case had been reopened as a consequence of the discovery of a mistake in the original assessment of the applicants" application for restitution, which made the enforcement of the first restitution decision impossible and thus liable to revision, as required under the relevant domestic law.