Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 50702/18 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,9268) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AKIN PEKER v. TURKEY
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87
RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 50702/18
As regards the complaint concerning the Constitutional Court's decision to award a lump sum to the applicants who were represented by the same lawyer, the Court reiterates that where a proprietary interest is in the nature of a claim, it may be regarded as an "asset" only if there is a sufficient basis for that interest in national law (for example, where there is settled case-law of the domestic courts confirming it), that is, when the claim is sufficiently established as to be enforceable (see Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 59, Series A no. 301-B; Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 49 and 52, ECHR 2004-IX; and Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. - EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 50702/18
37685/10 and 22768/12, § 142, 20 March 2018). - EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98
GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 50702/18
The Court has also referred to claims in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised, that is, that he or she will obtain effective enjoyment of a property right (see, inter alia, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002 VII, and Kopecký, cited above, § 35).
- EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 70243/11
DZASOKHOV v. GEORGIA
Such an acknowledgment, in the Court's opinion, given the scope of the retrial and its outcome, satisfies the first condition laid down in the Court's case-law (see Hammerton v. the United Kingdom, no. 6287/10, § 132, 17 March 2016; see also, mutatis mutandis, Staykov v. Bulgaria, no. 49438/99, § 90, 12 October 2006, and Akin Peker v. Turkey (dec.), no. 50702/18, § 17, 22 January 2019; contrast Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, §§ 37-38, 24 October 2002).