Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 29979/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,56557
EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 29979/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,56557)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.10.2011 - 29979/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,56557)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. Oktober 2011 - 29979/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,56557)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56557) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (43)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 35178/97

    ANKARCRONA c. SUEDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 29979/04
    The Court reiterates that, similarly to what is stated above with respect to the rules concerning victim status for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention, a company's sole owner can claim to be a victim of interference with his individual rights under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 directed against his or her company (see, among other authorities, Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, 27 June 2000; Nosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30877/02, 20 October 2005; and Humbatov, cited above, § 21).
  • EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 41510/98

    JASIUNIENE v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 29979/04
    As regards the first aspect, it is the Court's settled case-law that, as a general rule, failure of the State authorities to provide an applicant with a property awarded to him or her by a final court judgment constitutes an interference incompatible with the guarantees set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III; JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 45, 6 March 2003; and Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 53-55, 29 June 2004).
  • EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 18966/02

    VOYTENKO v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 29979/04
    As regards the first aspect, it is the Court's settled case-law that, as a general rule, failure of the State authorities to provide an applicant with a property awarded to him or her by a final court judgment constitutes an interference incompatible with the guarantees set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III; JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 45, 6 March 2003; and Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 53-55, 29 June 2004).
     
  • EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 30877/02

    NOSOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 29979/04
    The Court reiterates that, similarly to what is stated above with respect to the rules concerning victim status for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention, a company's sole owner can claim to be a victim of interference with his individual rights under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 directed against his or her company (see, among other authorities, Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, 27 June 2000; Nosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30877/02, 20 October 2005; and Humbatov, cited above, § 21).
  • EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 72118/01

    KHAMIDOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 29979/04
    In this case the Court had regard to the fact that these brothers acted in agreement in domestic proceedings and the applicant's application before the Court generated general support of his brother (no. 72118/01, § 125, ECHR 2007-XII (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 36548/97

    PINCOVÁ ET PINC c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 29979/04
    On the other hand, 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, 26.11.2013 - 41248/06

    BOGDEL v. LITHUANIA

    It requires that where an issue in the general interest is at stake, in particular when the matter affects fundamental human rights such as those involving property, the public authorities must act in good time and in an appropriate and above all consistent manner (see Rysovskyy v. Ukraine, no. 29979/04, §§ 70-71, 20 October 2011).

    [18] See Moskal, cited above, § 69; Beyeler v. Italy (GC), no. 33202796, § 120, ECHR 2000-I; Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova, no. 21151/04, § 72, 8 April 2008; and Rysovskyy v. Ukraine, no. 29979/04, §§ 70-71, 20 October 2011.

  • EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 45092/07

    PYRANTIENE v. LITHUANIA

    It requires that where an issue pertaining to the general interest is at stake, especially when it affects fundamental human rights, including property rights, the public authorities must act promptly and in an appropriate and above all consistent manner (see Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 120, ECHR 2000-I; Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova, no. 21151/04, § 72, ECHR 2008; and Rysovskyy v. Ukraine, no. 29979/04, § 71, 20 October 2011).
  • EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 12549/11

    KHUNDADZEEBI v. GEORGIA

    The applicable general principles have been summarised in Vistins and Perepjolkins v. Latvia ([GC], no. 71243/01, §§ 93, 95-99 and 108-14, 25 October 2012); Hutten-Czapska v. Poland ([GC], no. 35014/97, §§ 163-68, ECHR 2006-VIII); Rysovskyy v. Ukraine, (no. 29979/04, §§ 70-71, 20 October 2011, with further references); and Beyeler v. Italy ([GC], no. 33202/96, § 120, ECHR 2000-I).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht