Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LAY LAY COMPANY LIMITED v. MALTA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Access to court) No 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) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Lay Lay Company Limited v. Malta

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  LAY LAY COMPANY LIMITED v. MALTA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 03.11.2005 - 38244/03

  ABDILLA v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 30633/11

  Nevertheless, in the exercise of its power of review the Court must determine whether the requisite balance was maintained in a manner consonant with the applicant's right of property (see Abdilla v. Malta (dec.), no 38244/03, 3 November 2005, and J. Lautier Company Limited v. Malta (dec.) no. 37448/06, 2 December 2008).
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

  Verschleppter Prozess - Mann prozessiert seit 16 Jahren um Entschädigung nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 30633/11

  Thus, even assuming that the complaint is not unsubstantiated and that it refers to the Constitutional Court's finding, it is reiterated that the effectiveness of a remedy within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 98, ECHR 2006-VII).
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 37448/06

  J. LAUTIER COMPANY LIMITED v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 30633/11

  Nevertheless, in the exercise of its power of review the Court must determine whether the requisite balance was maintained in a manner consonant with the applicant's right of property (see Abdilla v. Malta (dec.), no 38244/03, 3 November 2005, and J. Lautier Company Limited v. Malta (dec.) no. 37448/06, 2 December 2008).

 
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 27798/95

  AMANN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 30633/11

  The mere fact that an applicant's claim fails is not in itself sufficient to render the remedy ineffective (see Amann v. Switzerland, [GC], no. 27798/95, §§ 88-89, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 33804/96

  MENNITTO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 30633/11

  The dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise; and, lastly, the result of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not being sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see, inter alia, Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, § 23, ECHR 2000 X, and Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 74, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 41400/98

  MONFORTE SANCHO, GARCIA MORENO, ROIG ESPERT, ROIG ESPERT ET ICARDO GARCIA contre …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 30633/11

  38366/97, 38688/97, 40777/98, 40843/98, 41015/98, 41400/98, 41446/98, 41484/98, 41487/98 and 41509/98, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 23.01.2003 - 51307/99

  GEFFRE contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 30633/11

  Its role in cases such as the present is to determine whether the applicant was able to count on a coherent system that struck a fair balance between the authorities" interests and his own and, in particular, whether he was given a clear, practical and effective opportunity to challenge an administrative act that allegedly constituted a direct interference with his rights (see Geffre v. France (dec.), no. 51307/99, ECHR 2003-I (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

  LYKOUREZOS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 30633/11

  In the present case the 1992 Act explicitly contained retroactive provisions (see, conversely, Kechko, cited above, § 27) which were both accessible and foreseeable to the applicant company, even before he actually received and paid the bill, the legislation having been enacted in January 1992 and being therefore published in the Government Gazette (see conversely, mutatis mutandis, Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, § 55, ECHR 2006-VIII, in the context of a complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03

  MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 30633/11

  The right of access to a court is an inherent aspect of the safeguards enshrined in Article 6. Thus, Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have a claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court (see Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, § 92, ECHR 2006-XIV).
• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 25803/04

  HERRI BATASUNA ET BATASUNA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 30633/11

  Moreover, the Convention contains no provision ruling out the possibility of relying on facts preceding enactment of the law (see Herri Batasuna and Batasuna v. Spain, nos. 25803/04 and 25817/04, § 59, ECHR 2009, in relation to the assessment of the lawfulness of a measure under Article 11).
• EKMR, 10.03.1981 - 8531/79

  A., B., C. ET D. c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12129/86

  HENNINGS v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

  ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)
• EGMR, 25.11.1994 - 12884/87

  ORTENBERG c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02

  Depalle ./. Frankreich - Brosset Triboulet u. a. ./. Frankreich

• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 20702/18

  SUPERGRAV ALBANIA SHPK v. ALBANIA

  Rules governing the procedure and time-limits applicable to legal remedies are intended to ensure the proper administration of justice and compliance with, in particular, the principle of legal certainty, and litigants should expect the existing rules to be applied (see Miragall Escolano and Others v. Spain, nos. 38366/97 and 9 others, § 33, ECHR 2000-I, and Lay Lay Company Limited v. Malta, no. 30633/11, § 56, 23 July 2013).
• EGMR, 29.11.2022 - 73274/17

  ÇELA v. ALBANIA

  Rules governing the procedure and time-limits applicable to legal remedies are intended to ensure the proper administration of justice and compliance with, in particular, the principle of legal certainty, and litigants should expect the existing rules to be applied (see Miragall Escolano and Others v. Spain, nos. 38366/97 and 9 others, § 33, ECHR 2000-I, and Lay Company Limited v. Malta, no. 30633/11, § 56, 23 July 2013).
• EGMR, 21.03.2023 - 21680/18

  BRADEAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Fixing of limitation periods for access to courts is generally permissible (see Miragall Escolano and Others v. Spain, nos. 38366/97 and 9 others, § 33, ECHR 2000-I, and Lay Company Limited v. Malta, no. 30633/11, § 56, 23 July 2013).

 
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 26635/12

  ALEKSANDRIJA A DOOEL v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  In accordance with the Court's established case-law, the national authorities should exercise discretion in their choice and implementation of planning policies and in that context they enjoy a wide margin of appreciation (see Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 70, ECHR 2004-III; Lay Lay Company Limited v. Malta, no. 30633/11, § 83, 23 July 2013; and Crash 2000 OOD and others v. Bulgaria, (dec.), no. 49893/07, § 57, 17 December 2013).
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 19732/17

  STICHTING LANDGOED STEENBERGEN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The Court must ascertain whether the applicants had a clear, practical and effective opportunity to challenge the administrative act concerned (see Geffre v. France (dec.), no. 51307/99, ECHR 2003-I (extracts), and Lay Lay Company Limited v. Malta, no. 30633/11, § 56, 23 July 2013).
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 49893/07

  CRASH 2000 OOD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  According to the Court's established case-law, the national authorities exercise inevitable discretion in their choice and implementation of planning policies and in that context they enjoy a wide margin of appreciation (see, for example, Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, § 75, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 70, ECHR 2004-III; Lay Lay Company Limited v. Malta, no. 30633/11, § 83, 23 July 2013).