Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VALANT v. SLOVENIA

  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) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VALANT v. SLOVENIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 23912/12
• EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 23912/12

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

  CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 23912/12

  The Court therefore accepts that the applicant incurred expenses in seeking redress for violations of the Convention through the domestic legal system (see, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 224, ECHR 2012) and finds that the court fees and procedural costs he was made to pay should be reimbursed to him.
• EGMR, 10.05.2017 - 576/06

  SAFARYAN CONTRE L'ARMÉNIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 23912/12

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 30, ECHR 1999-V, and Safaryan v. Armenia, no. 576/06, § 61, 21 January 2016).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97

  BOTTAZZI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 23912/12

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 30, ECHR 1999-V, and Safaryan v. Armenia, no. 576/06, § 61, 21 January 2016).

 
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 23912/12

  The Court reiterates that the seizure of property for legal proceedings relates to the control of the use of property (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no. 281-A, and Karamitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 53321/99, § 72, 10 January 2008).
• EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 63398/13

  POP-ILIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 23912/12

  Only when those conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude the examination of an application (see Pop-Ilic and Others v. Serbia, nos. 63398/13, 76869/13, 76879/13, 76886/13 and 76890/13, § 39, 14 October 2014).
• EGMR, 20.11.2006 - 4295/03

  CHROUST v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 23912/12

  In those circumstances the Court considers that the right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions was in issue, even if only implicitly, in the proceedings before the Slovenian Constitutional Court and that the legal arguments put forward by the applicant in that court included a complaint connected with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The complaint in question was therefore raised, at least in substance, before the Constitutional Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Chroust v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 4295/03, ECHR 2006-XV).
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 13703/04

  VASILYEV AND KOVTUN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 23912/12

  The Court further reiterates that any interference by a public authority with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions should be lawful: the second sentence of the first paragraph authorises a deprivation of possessions only "subject to the conditions provided for by law" and the second paragraph recognises that the States have the right to control the use of property by enforcing "laws" (see Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II, and Vasilyev and Kovtun v. Russia, no. 13703/04, § 80, 13 December 2011).