Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZELENCHUK AND TSYTSYURA v. UKRAINE

  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);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - General measures);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of ...

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 846/16

  On the other hand, the applicants inherited the land from their parents rather than acquired it in a commercial transaction (contrast, for example, Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 222).
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 846/16

  In such circumstances it appears that the Constitutional Court was prevented from engaging in any detail with the substance of the matter, in particular the reasons for the introduction and maintenance of the moratorium and the question of balancing of the relevant interests (contrast Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos. 46720/99 and 2 others, § 116, ECHR 2005-VI, and in the context of Article 10, Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, §§ 13-33 and 113-16, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 846/16

  The Court considers that this is not a case where it can rely on such merely statistical evidence (contrast D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, §§ 187-89, ECHR 2007-IV, concerning the use of statistical evidence in cases concerning discrimination) and the applicants did not submit any evidence showing any abuse of market power by tenants in their particular cases.

 
• EGMR - 2139/10 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 846/16

  13221/08 and 2139/10, §§ 76-78, 12 June 2012; and Herrmann v. Germany [GC], no. 9300/07, § 73, 26 June 2012, with further references therein).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 846/16

  Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicants had to know from the start that they were coming into possession of encumbered property which would remain so encumbered save for the eventuality of some uncertain future development (contrast, for example, Depalle, cited above; Lacz v. Poland (dec.), no. 22665/02, 23 June 2009; and Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, 21 February 1990, § 53, Series A no. 171-A).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 846/16

  The Court sees no reason to disagree with the parties and finds that the impugned legislative situation constitutes an interference with the applicants" possessions attracting the application of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that it is the rule on control of the use of property that applies (see, mutatis mutandis, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 64, Series A no. 31; Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 46, ECHR 1999-V; Hutten-Czapska, cited above, §§ 160 and 161; Lindheim and Others v. Norway, nos.
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 846/16

  The Court sees no reason to disagree with the parties and finds that the impugned legislative situation constitutes an interference with the applicants" possessions attracting the application of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that it is the rule on control of the use of property that applies (see, mutatis mutandis, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 64, Series A no. 31; Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 46, ECHR 1999-V; Hutten-Czapska, cited above, §§ 160 and 161; Lindheim and Others v. Norway, nos.
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 846/16

  It remains the case, however, that reasons need to be shown for the choice of a more restrictive solution and the existence of alternative solutions does constitute a factor relevant for determining whether the means chosen could be regarded as reasonable and suited to achieving the legitimate aim being pursued, having regard to the need to strike a "fair balance" (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 51, Series A no. 98).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 846/16

  Indeed, when the second applicant came into possession of the land he had to be aware that it was already subject to restrictive regulations on its sale (compare, mutatis mutandis, Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 54, Series A no. 192) and it could not be ruled out that the prohibition could be extended (compare Depalle, cited above, § 86).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 846/16

  The applicants drew parallels between their situation and those of the applicants in the case of Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden (23 September 1982, Series A no. 52), in that the Ukrainian legislature's persistent failure to enact legislation which would allow the moratorium to be lifted and land to be sold was analogous to the Swedish authorities" repeated extensions of a prohibition on construction which had created a prolonged situation of uncertainty for the applicants in that case.
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 34943/06

  PINDSTRUP MOSEBRUG A/S v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 26.06.1986 - 8543/79

  VAN MARLE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 46201/16

  ASSOCIATIONS DE COPROPRIÉTÉ FORESTIÈRE PORCENI PLESA ET PICIORUL BATRÂN BANCIU c. …

  Autrement dit, que l'on analyse l'affaire sous l'angle d'une obligation positive à la charge de l'État ou sous celui d'une ingérence des pouvoirs publics demandant une justification, les critères à appliquer ne sont pas différents en substance (Broniowski c. Pologne [GC], no 31443/96, § 144, CEDH 2004-V, et les références qui s'y trouvent citées, Ali?.ic et autres c. Bosnie-Herzégovine, Croatie, Serbie, Slovénie et l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine [GC], no 60642/08, §§ 101, CEDH 2014, et Zelenchuk et Tsytsyura c. Ukraine, nos 846/16 et 1075/16, § 104, 22 mai 2018).
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 19620/05

  UZAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  - La durée de la validité des restrictions en cause, qui se sont poursuivies sur plus de douze ans pour les requérants Jasmin Paris Uzan et Renç Emre Uzan, sur près de dix ans pour la requérante Nimet Hülya Talu, et sur plus de quinze ans pour les requérantes Bilge Dogru et Ayla Uzan-Ashaboglu (voir, par exemple, les affaires Sporrong et Lönnroth, précité, § 72, et JGK Statyba Ltd et Guselnikovas, précité, § 143, où les restrictions à la pleine jouissance du droit de propriété ont duré respectivement douze ans et plus de dix ans ; voir aussi Zelenchuk et Tsytsyura c. Ukraine, nos 846/16 et 1075/16, § 144, 22 mai 2018).
• EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 10794/12

  GIULIANO GERMANO v. ITALY

  846/16 and 1075/16, § 106, 22 May 2018, and paragraph 134 below).