Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 27576/05 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ALEKSA v. LITHUANIA
(englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 27576/05
It is recalled that, for the purposes of the above-mentioned provision, the Court must determine whether a fair balance was struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 68, Series A no. 52).Of course, even accepting that some difficulties will arise for the State in the restitution process, I fully agree with the well developed jurisprudence of the Court, that a "fair balance" must be struck between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 68-69, Series A no. 52), and that an excessive burden cannot be placed on the person concerned (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 78, ECHR 1999-VII).
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 27576/05
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 following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and 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). - EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 57001/00
STRAIN ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 27576/05
The requisite balance will not be struck where the person concerned bears an individual and excessive burden (see Strain and Others v. Romania, no. 57001/00, § 44, ECHR 2005-VII).
- EKMR, 08.09.1997 - 30229/96
J. M.F. ET AUTRES contre le PORTUGAL
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 27576/05
The state of uncertainty which an applicant may experience as a result of delays attributable to the authorities is a factor to be taken into account in assessing the State's conduct (see Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 54, ECHR 2000-I, and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 151 and 185, ECHR 2004-V). - EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 32190/96
LUORDO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 27576/05
However, there is a risk that such restitution proceedings may unreasonably restrict an applicant's ability to deal with his or her possessions, particularly if such proceedings are protracted (see, mutatis mutandis, Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, § 70, ECHR 2003-IX). - EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 29813/96
ALMEIDA GARRETT, MASCARENHAS FALCAO AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 27576/05
The state of uncertainty which an applicant may experience as a result of delays attributable to the authorities is a factor to be taken into account in assessing the State's conduct (see Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 54, ECHR 2000-I, and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 151 and 185, ECHR 2004-V). - EGMR, 15.03.2007 - 43278/98
VELIKOVI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 51362/99
ENEVA AND DOBREV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 48380/99
TODOROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 194/02
NIKOLOVI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 73465/01
TZILEVI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 60036/00
BOGDANOVI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 55056/10
SIMAITIENE v. LITHUANIA
For relevant domestic law, see Igariene and Petrauskiene v. Lithuania, no. 26892/05, § 26, 21 July 2009, and Aleksa v. Lithuania, no. 27576/05, § 39, 21 July 2009.The Court takes cognisance of the fact that the present case concerns the restitution of property and is not unmindful of the complexity of the legal and factual issues that a State faces when resolving such questions (see Aleksa v. Lithuania, no. 27576/05, § 86, 21 July 2009; Igariene and Petrauskiene v. Lithuania, no. 26892/05, § 58, 21 July 2009, and Paukstis v. Lithuania, no. 17467/07, § 84, 24 November 2015).
- EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 52815/15
GEGLIS v. LITHUANIA
It follows that certain impediments to the realisation of an applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions are not in themselves open to criticism (see Aleksa v. Lithuania, no. 27576/05, § 86, 21 July 2009; Igariene and Petrauskiene v. Lithuania, no. 26892/05, § 58, 21 July 2009; Paukstis v. Lithuania, no. 17467/07, § 84, 24 November 2015; ? imaitiene v. Lithuania, no. 55056/10, § 45, 21 February 2017; and Grigolovic, cited above, § 44).