Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAFARYAN v. ARMENIA

  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)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 576/06
• EGMR, 10.05.2017 - 576/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 576/06

  The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52; Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 55, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 576/06

  Such agreements may show, if they are legally enforceable, that the sums claimed are actually payable by the applicant (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 55, ECHR 2000-XI; and Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 115, Series A no. 168).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 576/06

  However, the Court has limited power to review compliance with domestic law since it is a matter which primarily lies within the competence of domestic courts (see Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, 21 February 1990, § 47, Series A no. 171-A).

 
• EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 25149/03

  Rechtssache V. H. gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 576/06

  The Court finds that the unilateral declaration does not afford satisfactory redress to the applicant in view of the fact that no compensation is offered to her for the violation of her rights and that, consequently, the Government failed to submit a statement offering a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see, a contrario, Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 37453/97, §§ 23-24, ECHR 2001-VI; and Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, §§ 34-37, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 24.02.1983 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 576/06

  The Court, therefore, recognises the lawfulness of the arrangement entered into between the applicant and her representative, Mr Alumyan (contrast with Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (Article 50), 24 February 1983, § 22, Series A no. 59).
• EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 37453/97

  AKMAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 576/06

  The Court finds that the unilateral declaration does not afford satisfactory redress to the applicant in view of the fact that no compensation is offered to her for the violation of her rights and that, consequently, the Government failed to submit a statement offering a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see, a contrario, Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 37453/97, §§ 23-24, ECHR 2001-VI; and Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, §§ 34-37, ECHR 2005-IX).