Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CURMI v. MALTA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - reserved Non-pecuniary damage - reserved (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Curmi v. Malta

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 2243/10
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 2243/10

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 2243/10

  The Court reiterates that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees, in substance, the right to property and comprises three distinct rules (see, for example, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 2243/10

  It follows that the taking fulfilled the public interest requirement (see, for example, Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 48, Series A no. 192; Matos e Silva, Lda., and Others v. Portugal, 16 September 1996, § 88, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; and Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, § 77, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 2243/10

  The Court will respect the legislature's judgment as to what is "in the public interest" unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation (see Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos. 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01, ECHR 2005-VI, § 91; Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 49, ECHR 1999-V; and, mutatis mutandis, Fleri Soler and Camilleri v. Malta, no. 35349/05, § 65, 26 September 2006).

 
• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 2243/10

  They must be construed in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see, for example, Air Canada v the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, §§ 29 and 30, Series A no. 316-A).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 51585/99

  HORVAT v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 2243/10

  Whatever the effectiveness of an action under the Civil Code might be, an action of a general nature and in respect of which the Government have not produced any evidence in relation to its prospects of success (see, mutatis mutandis, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 156, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts)), the Court considers that, in such cases, owners could not be expected to incur the expense and burden of instituting proceedings to ensure the authorities" fulfilment of their legal obligation (see, mutatis mutandis, Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, §§ 64-65, ECHR 2006-XI, in relation to enforcement proceedings).
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 74258/01

  URBARSKA OBEC TRENCIANSKE BISKUPICE v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 2243/10

  Legitimate objectives in the "public interest", such as those pursued in measures of economic reform or measures designed to achieve greater social justice, may call for reimbursement of less than the full market value (see Urbárska Obec Trencianske Biskupice v. Slovakia, no. 74258/01, § 115, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 77688/01

  LUBINA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 2243/10

  The Court has previously rejected applications for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies where the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, failed to lodge his constitutional complaint in accordance with the applicable procedural rules and established practice (Obluk v. Slovakia, no. 69484/01, § 62, 20 June 2006) or had not made use of the constitutional remedy in accordance with the formal requirements, as interpreted and applied by the Constitutional Court (see Lubina v. Slovakia, no. 77688/01, § 63, 19 September 2006).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 19.04.2012 - C-416/10

  Krizan u.a. - Umwelt - Errichtung einer Abfalldeponie - …

  82 - Urteile vom 7. Februar 1985, ADBHU (240/83, Slg. 1985, 531, Randnr. 13), sowie vom 9. März 2010, ERG u. a. (C-379/08 und C-380/08, Slg. 2010, I-2007, Randnr. 81), und die Urteile des EGMR vom 29. März 2010, Depalle/Frankreich (Beschwerde-Nr. 34044/02, § 81 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung), Pine Valley Developments Ltd u. a./Irland (zitiert in Fn. 80, § 57), sowie vom 22. November 2011, Curmi/Malta (Beschwerde-Nr. 2243/10, § 44).