Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75, 7152/75   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1982,11509
EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75, 7152/75 (https://dejure.org/1982,11509)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.09.1982 - 7151/75, 7152/75 (https://dejure.org/1982,11509)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. September 1982 - 7151/75, 7152/75 (https://dejure.org/1982,11509)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1982,11509) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

    Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 17, Art. 18, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 18+P1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation de P1-1 Violation de l'Art. 6-1 Non-violation de l'art. 14+P1-1 Non-lieu à examiner les art. 18+P1-1 17+P1-1 et 13 Satisfaction équitable réservée (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SPORRONG AND LÖNNROTH v. SWEDEN

    Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 17, Art. 18, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 17+P1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of P1-1 Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 14+P1-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 17+P1-1 18+P1-1 and 13 Just satisfaction reserved (englisch)

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (800)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

  • EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

    LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
    1 (art. 6-1)" (Series A no. 43, p. 20, par. 44, with a reference to the Golder judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18).

    When considering the admissibility of such an application, the Supreme Administrative Court does not examine the merits of the case; at that stage, it therefore does not undertake a full review of measures affecting a civil right (see, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, pp. 23, 24 and 26, par. 51, 54 and 60).

    It has also held that that provision may "be relied on by anyone who considers that an interference with the exercise of one of his (civil) rights is unlawful and complains that he has not had the possibility of submitting that claim to a tribunal meeting the requirements of Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1)" (Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 20, § 44).

    Of course, it is a delicate task to decide whether or not a dispute is serious or "veritable" (see the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 20, § 45), but it must in border-line cases, like this one, be faced.

    The Court has decided that the concept of "civil rights" ("droits de caractère civil") in Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) must be given an autonomous meaning in the sense that it cannot be interpreted solely by reference to the domestic law of the respondent State, and has held that Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) applies where there is a "contestation" (dispute) the result of which is directly decisive of "civil rights" in a sense of private rights, but that a tenuous connection or remote consequences do not suffice (see, for instance, the judgment of 23 June 1981 in the case of Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere, Series A no. 43, pp. 20-21, §§ 44-47).

  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

    GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
    1 (art. 6-1)" (Series A no. 43, p. 20, par. 44, with a reference to the Golder judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18).

    The Court has to establish Swedish law conferred on the applicants the "right to a court", one aspect of which is the right to access, that is the right to institute proceedings before a court having competence in civil matters (see the above-mentioned Golder judgment, Series A no. 18, p. 18, par. 36).

    1 (art. 6-1) (see the above-mentioned Airey judgment, Series A no. 32, p. 18, par. 35, and, mutatis mutandis, the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, pl. 46, par. 95, and the above-mentioned Golder judgment Series A no. 18, pp. 15-16, par. 33).

    The Court has already had occasion to establish that Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) guarantees access to a court or tribunal in cases where the determination of civil rights and obligations is at issue (Golder judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, § 36).

  • EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

    MARCKX v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
    This is the clear impression left by the words "possessions" and "use of property" (in French: "biens", "propriété", "usage des biens"); the "travaux préparatoires", for their part, confirm this unequivocally: the drafters continually spoke of ""right of property" or "right to property" to describe the subject-matter of the successive drafts which were the forerunners of the present Article 1 (P1-1)." (Series A no. 31, p. 27, par. 63).

    In the Court's view, it is not appropriate at this stage to determine whether the applicants were in fact prejudiced (see, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned Marckx judgment, Series A no. 31, p. 13, par. 27): it was in their legal situation itself that the requisite balance was no longer to be found.

    In paragraph 64 of its judgment of 13 June 1979 in the Marckx case (Series A no. 31, p. 28) the Court said that "This paragraph thus sets the Contracting States up as sole judges of the "necessity" for such a law".

     
  • EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

    AIREY v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
    Since the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are "practical and effective" (see the Airey judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 12, par. 24), it has to be ascertained whether that situation amounted to a de facto expropriation, as was argued by the applicants.

    1 (art. 6-1) (see the above-mentioned Airey judgment, Series A no. 32, p. 18, par. 35, and, mutatis mutandis, the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, pl. 46, par. 95, and the above-mentioned Golder judgment Series A no. 18, pp. 15-16, par. 33).

  • EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

    VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
    In the absence of a formal expropriation, that is to say a transfer of ownership, the Court considers that it must look behind the appearances and investigate the realities of the situation complained of (see, mutatis mutandis, the Van Droogenbroeck judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 20, par. 38).
  • EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

    König ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
    It is of little consequence that the contestation (dispute) concerned an administrative measure taken by the competent body in the exercise of public authority (see, mutatis mutandis, the Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 39, par. 94, and the König judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, p. 32, par. 94).
  • EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

    RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
    It is of little consequence that the contestation (dispute) concerned an administrative measure taken by the competent body in the exercise of public authority (see, mutatis mutandis, the Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 39, par. 94, and the König judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, p. 32, par. 94).
  • EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

    Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland

    Having considered Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden (judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52), he defined the essential question as being whether the interference with the applicant company's possession of the aircraft was a proportionate measure in the light of the aims of general interest Regulation (EEC) no. 990/93 sought to achieve.
  • EGMR, 21.02.1986 - 8793/79

    JAMES ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Die dritte Regel anerkennt das Recht der Staaten, u.a. die Nutzung des Eigentums in Übereinstimmung mit dem Allgemeininteresse zu regeln; diese Regel ergibt sich aus dem zweiten Absatz (Série A Nr. 52, S. 24, Ziff. 61, EGMR-E 2, 154).

    Dieses Erfordernis wurde mit anderen Worten im Urteil Sporrong und Lönnroth betont, in dem ein "angemessener Ausgleich" zwischen den Erfordernissen des öffentlichen Interesses der Gemeinschaft und den Anforderungen der Wahrung der Grundrechte des Einzelnen einzuhalten gefordert wurde (Série A Nr. 52, S. 26, Ziff. 69, EGMR-E 2, 156).

    Entschädigungsregelungen sind entscheidende Gesichtspunkte, wenn festgestellt werden soll, ob die Enteignungsgesetzgebung einen angemessenen Ausgleich einhält und die Bf. keiner übermäßigen Belastung ausgesetzt werden (vgl. Sporrong und Lönnroth, Série A Nr. 52, S. 26 und 28, Ziff. 69 und 73, EGMR-E 2, 156 u. 157 f.).

    Der Gerichtshof bezieht sich auf seine bisherige Rechtsprechung im Fall Sporrong und Lönnroth (Série A Nr. 52, S. 30, Ziff. 81, EGMR-E 2, 159 f.), wonach Art. 6 Abs. 1 dann verletzt ist, wenn nationales Recht nicht beachtet worden ist und die davon ausgehende Verletzung zivilrechtlicher Ansprüche nicht von einem unabhängigen Gericht überprüft werden kann.

  • EGMR, 22.01.2004 - 46720/99

    Verletzung des Protokolls durch Eigentumsentziehung zu Gunsten des Staatas nach …

    Die zweite und dritte beziehen sich auf besondere Beispiele für Verletzungen des Rechts auf Eigentum; daher sind sie im Lichte des in der ersten Vorschrift verankerten Grundsatzes auszulegen" (siehe u.a. Urteil in der Sache James u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich , 21. Februar 1986, Serie A, Band 98, S. 29-30, Rn. 37, das teilweise den Wortlaut der Analyse aufgreift, die der Gerichtshof in seinem Urteil in der Sache Sporrong und Lönnroth ./. Schweden , 23. September 1982, Serie A, Band 52, S. 24, Rn. 61, entwickelt hat;… siehe auch die Urteile in der Sache Die heiligen Klöster ./. Griechenland , 9. Dezember 1994, Serie A, Band 301-A, S. 31, Rn. 56, in der Sache Iatridis ./. Griechenland [GC], Nr. 31107/96, Rn. 55, CEDH 1999-II, und in der Sache Beyeler ./. Italien [GC], Nr. 33202/96, Rn. 106, CEDH 2000-I).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht