Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 48981/17, 49727/17, 41306/18 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2022,14829) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ARAMBASIN v. CROATIA
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
ARAMBASIN v. CROATIA and 2 other applications
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 31386/17
KIRINCIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 48981/17
Moreover, in cases like the present one, where the remedy in question was the result of interpretation by the courts, it normally takes six months for such a development of the case-law to acquire a sufficient degree of legal certainty before the public may be considered to be effectively aware of the domestic decision which had established the remedy and the persons concerned be enabled and obliged to use it (see, for example, Kirincic and Others v. Croatia, no. 31386/17, § 115, 30 July 2020). - EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06
AMATO GAUCI v. MALTA
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 48981/17
However, their claim for future losses must be dismissed, without prejudice to any future claims they may have, because it is not for the Court to quantify the amount of any damage which they may suffer as a result of the implementation of the rent-control scheme in the future (see Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 80, 15 September 2009, and Bittó and Others v. Slovakia (just satisfaction), no. 30255/09, § 27, 7 July 2015). - EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 23414/15
SKELIN-HRVOJ AND DURICIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 48981/17
In reply to similar arguments in earlier cases the Court has held that the alleged violations stemmed from the national legislation itself and that the applicants therefore could not have effectively challenged the level of protected rent (see Statileo v. Croatia, no. 12027/10, §§ 96 and 165, 10 July 2014, and Skelin-Hrvoj and uricic v. Croatia [Committee], nos. 23414/15 and 52161/15, §§ 50-53, 10 June 2021). - EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 12027/10
STATILEO v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 48981/17
In reply to similar arguments in earlier cases the Court has held that the alleged violations stemmed from the national legislation itself and that the applicants therefore could not have effectively challenged the level of protected rent (see Statileo v. Croatia, no. 12027/10, §§ 96 and 165, 10 July 2014, and Skelin-Hrvoj and uricic v. Croatia [Committee], nos. 23414/15 and 52161/15, §§ 50-53, 10 June 2021).