Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 58630/11 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LJASKAJ v. CROATIA
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
LJASKAJ v. CROATIA
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 58630/11
- EGMR, 31.01.2018 - 58630/11
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
Budweiser-Streit
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 58630/11
v. Portugal ([GC], no. 73049/01, § 83, ECHR 2007-I), and, in more detail, in Zagrebacka banka d.d. v. Croatia (no. 39544/05, §§ 250-251, 12 December 2013).In particular, it is not its function to take the place of the domestic courts, its role being rather to ensure that the decisions of those courts are not flawed by arbitrariness or otherwise manifestly unreasonable (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 83, ECHR 2007-I, and Zagrebacka banka d.d. v. Croatia, no. 39544/05, § 250, 12 December 2013, both cited in paragraph 61 of the judgment).
- EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09
CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 58630/11
The Court further reiterates that the principle of lawfulness also presupposes that the applicable provisions of domestic law are sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in their application (see, for example, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 187, ECHR 2012).As quoted in the judgment (see paragraph 65), a rule is foreseeable when an individual is able to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see, among many others, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 141, ECHR 2012).
- EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98
MAESTRI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 58630/11
Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise (see Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 84, ECHR 2000-XI; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 82, 14 September 2010; and also Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano, cited above, § 143).