Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 57001/00   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,40209
EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 57001/00 (https://dejure.org/2005,40209)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.07.2005 - 57001/00 (https://dejure.org/2005,40209)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. Juli 2005 - 57001/00 (https://dejure.org/2005,40209)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,40209) 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

    STRAIN ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation de P1-1 Violation de l'art. 6-1 en ce qui concerne le délai raisonnable Irrecevable sous l'angle de l'art. 6-1 pour le surplus Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    STRAIN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of P1-1 Violation of Art. 6-1 concerning the reasonable time Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 concerning the others complaints Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings ...

 
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 ... (231)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

    COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 57001/00
    In addition, if one or more heads of damage cannot be calculated precisely or if the distinction between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage proves difficult, the Court may decide to make a global assessment (see Comingersoll v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

    FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 57001/00
    The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria enshrined in its case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII, and Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, § 73, 10 July 2003).
  • EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 46312/99

    CONSTANDACHE c. ROUMANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 57001/00
    In this connection, they relied on the precedents of Malhous v. the Czech Republic ((dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII), and Constandache v. Romania ((dec.), no. 46312/99, 11 June 2002).
     
  • EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 53341/99

    Rechtssache H. gegen TSCHECHISCHE REPUBLIK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 57001/00
    The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria enshrined in its case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII, and Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, § 73, 10 July 2003).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

    LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 57001/00
    The principle of lawfulness also presupposes that the provisions of domestic law are sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in their application (see Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, pp. 19-20, § 42, and Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 47, § 110).
  • EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

    HENTRICH v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 57001/00
    The principle of lawfulness also presupposes that the provisions of domestic law are sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in their application (see Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, pp. 19-20, § 42, and Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 47, § 110).
  • EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

    H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 57001/00
    The Court's power to review compliance with domestic law is, however, limited (see Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, p. 16, § 47).
  • EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

    PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 57001/00
    In particular, there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised by any measure depriving a person of his or her possessions (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 23, § 38).
  • EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

    SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 57001/00
    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, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, pp. 29-30, § 37, citing part of the Court's analysis in Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 24, § 61; see also The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-A, p. 31, § 56, and Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 55, ECHR 1999-II).
  • EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

    CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 57001/00
    In this connection, the Government relied on the precedents of Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy ([GC], no. 32967/96, §§ 65-66, ECHR 2002-I), and Constandache (cited above), and on the fact that the length of proceedings had been reasonable in each of the seven courts, to show that the period taken into consideration had been reasonable.
  • EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 10346/03

    DICKMANN AND GION v. ROMANIA

    The main legislative provisions relevant to the present case are described in Strain and Others v. Romania (no. 57001/00, §§ 19-23, ECHR 2005-VII); Paduraru v. Romania, no. 63252/00, §§ 23-53, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts); Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania (cited above, §§ 44-67); and Preda and Others v. Romania (cited above, §§ 70-74).

    In that regard, the Court firstly reiterates that the finding, whether in the reasoning or in the operative part of a final decision, which has not been quashed or challenged to date, that the nationalisation of the property was unlawful, had the effect of recognising, with retrospective effect, that the applicants had title to the respective property, so long as they also met the statutory conditions required in order to qualify for reparatory measures (see, among many other authorities, Strain and Others v. Romania, no. 57001/00, § 38, ECHR 2005-VII; Popescu and Dimeca v. Romania, no. 17799/03, §§ 21-22, 9 December 2008; and Maria Atanasiu and Others, cited above, §§ 142-45).

  • EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 30075/03

    KOMAROMI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

    The factual and legal circumstances set out in the current applications are similar to those pertaining to the applicants in the case of Strain and Others v. Romania (no. 57001/00, §§ 5-18, ECHR 2005-VII), to the applicants Ms and Mr Rodan in the case of Preda and Others v. Romania (nos. 9584/02 and 7 others, §§ 35-41, 29 April 2014) and to the applicants in the case of Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania (19788/03, §§ 6-7, 26 February 2019).

    The Court reiterates that it has already considered at length and rejected the same objections concerning the alleged inapplicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to situations identical to those in the current case (see Strain and Others v. Romania, no. 57001/00, §§ 30, 31 and 38, ECHR 2005-VII).

  • EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 17801/04

    LENGAUER AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

    The factual and legal circumstances set out in the current applications are similar to those pertaining to the applicants in the case of Strain and Others v. Romania (no. 57001/00, §§ 5-18, ECHR 2005-VII), to the applicants Ms and Mr Rodan in the case of Preda and Others v. Romania (nos. 9584/02 and 7 others, §§ 35-41, 29 April 2014) and to the applicants in the case of Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania (19788/03, §§ 6-7, 26 February 2019).

    The Court reiterates that it has already considered at length and rejected the same objections concerning the alleged inapplicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to situations identical to those in the current case (see Strain and Others v. Romania, no. 57001/00, §§ 30, 31 and 38, ECHR 2005-VII).

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