Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CESKOMORAVSKA MYSLIVECKA JEDNOTA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.1999 - 33091/96

  The Court recalls that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention may be either "existing possessions" or valuable assets, including claims, under certain conditions (see the Van der Mussele v. Belgium judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10522/83

  Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.1999 - 33091/96

  Provided that the authorities remain within the bounds of their margin of appreciation, it is not for the Court to say whether the legislation represented the best solution (see, mutatis mutandis, the Mellacher and Others v. Austria judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169, p. 28, § 53).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.1999 - 33091/96

  Finally, as to the difference in treatment between associations and non-governmental organisations on the one hand and State entities on the other hand in the matter of restitution, of which complaint is made by the applicant association, the Court recalls that Article 14 of the Convention affords protection against discrimination, that is treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in "relevantly" similar situations (see, for example, the Fredin v. Sweden judgment (No. 1) of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192, p. 19, § 60).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.1999 - 33091/96

  For the purposes of this examination the Court must determine whether a fair balance was struck between the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see the Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 23, § 38).

• EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 77207/01

  R. S. gegen Deutschland

  Folglich ist der Gerichtshof der Auffassung, dass der vorliegende Rechtsstreit nach Artikel 1 Satz 1 des Protokolls Nr. 1 geprüft werden sollte (…siehe, sinngemäß Rechtssachen Wittek ./. Deutschland , Urteil vom 12. Dezember 2002, Urteile und Entscheidungen 2002-X, Rdnr. 44; Ceskomoravská myslivecká jednota ./. Tschechische Republik (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 33091/96, 23. März 1999, und Teuschler ./. Deutschland (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 47636/99, 4. Oktober 2001).