Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STRETCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 06.11.2001 - 44277/98
• EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 44277/98

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95

  Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 44277/98

  The applicable interest rate is the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points (see no. 28957/95, Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], judgment of 11 July 2002, to be published in ECHR 2002-..., § 124).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1) (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 44277/98

  The question to be decided in such cases is the level of just satisfaction, in respect of both past and future pecuniary loss, which it is necessary to award to each applicant, the matter to be determined by the Court at its discretion, having regard to what is equitable (Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (former Article 50), judgment of 6 November 1989, Series A no. 38, p. 9, § 15; Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. the United Kingdom (Article 41), judgment of 25 July 2000, §§ 22-23).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

  Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 44277/98

  By way of contrast, the hope of recognition of the survival of an old property right which it has long been impossible to exercise effectively cannot be considered as a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition (see the recapitulation of the relevant principles in Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, 13 December 2000, ECHR 2000-XII, with further references, in particular to the Commission's case-law; also Prince Hans-Adam II v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, ECHR 2001-VIII, § 85, and Nerva v. the United Kingdom, no. 42295/98, judgment of 24 September 2002, § 43).

 
• EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 42295/98

  NERVA ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 44277/98

  By way of contrast, the hope of recognition of the survival of an old property right which it has long been impossible to exercise effectively cannot be considered as a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition (see the recapitulation of the relevant principles in Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, 13 December 2000, ECHR 2000-XII, with further references, in particular to the Commission's case-law; also Prince Hans-Adam II v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, ECHR 2001-VIII, § 85, and Nerva v. the United Kingdom, no. 42295/98, judgment of 24 September 2002, § 43).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 44277/98

  The Court recalls that, according to the established case-law of the Convention organs, "possessions" can be "existing possessions" or assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right (see, inter alia, Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, cited above, § 51, Pressos Companía Naviera S.A. v. Belgium judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31).
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 44277/98

  Furthermore, as in other areas of social, financial or economic policy, national authorities enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in implementation of laws regulating property and contractual relationships (see, mutatis mutandis, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, § 52).
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 44277/98

  The grant of the purported option to renew in his case was analogous to the grant of outline planning permission in the case of Pine Valley (Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222), in which the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in circumstances where the domestic courts declared the planning permission a nullity on the ground that it had been granted ultra vires.
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 44277/98

  As regards the applicants" claims for pecuniary loss, the Court's case-law establishes that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention and that this may, in the appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, amongst other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (former Article 50), judgment of 13 June 1994, Series A no. 285-C, pp.

• EGMR, 23.03.2017 - 59752/13

  Stichtagsregelung für die erbrechtliche Gleichstellung der vor dem 1. Juli 1949 …

  Was die Forderung des ersten Beschwerdeführers in Bezug auf den materiellen Schaden angeht, ist in der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs festgelegt, dass ein eindeutiger Kausalzusammenhang zwischen dem vom Beschwerdeführer geltend gemachten materiellen Schaden und der festgestellten Konventionsverletzung bestehen muss (siehe u. a. Stretch./. das Vereinigte Königreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 44277/98, Rdnr. 47, 24. Juni 2003).
• EGMR, 07.02.2013 - 16574/08

  FABRIS c. FRANCE

  However, the hope of recognition of the survival of an old property right which it has long been impossible to exercise effectively cannot be considered as a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition (see the recapitulation of the relevant principles in Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII, with further references to the Commission's case-law; see also Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 85, ECHR 2001-VIII; Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 42295/98, § 43, ECHR 2002-VIII; and Stretch v. the United Kingdom, no. 44277/98, § 32, 24 June 2003).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 29.11.2018 - C-235/17

  Kommission/ Ungarn (Usufruits sur terres agricoles)

  118 Im Rahmen von Art. 1 des Zusatzprotokolls Nr. 1 zur EMRK hat der EGMR beispielsweise als "Eigentum" angesehen: den Nießbrauch (EGMR, 12. Dezember 2002, Wittek/Deutschland, CE:ECHR:2002:1212JUD003729097, §§ 43 und 44, sowie EGMR, 16. November 2004, Bruncrona/Finnland, CE:ECHR:2004:1116JUD004167398, § 78), andere Formen von Dienstbarkeiten (Europäische Kommission für Menschenrechte, 13. Dezember 1984, S/Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:1984:1213DEC001074184, §§ 238 und 239), und das persönliche Recht auf Nutzung der Sache als Folge eines Pachtvertrags (EGMR, 24. Juni 2003, Stretch/Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:2003:0624JUD004427798, § 35).

 
• EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 75414/10

  KURBAN v. TURKEY

  Where the proprietary interest takes the form of a claim, the Court has taken the view that it may be regarded as an "asset" only where it has a sufficient basis in domestic law (see Chorbov v. Bulgaria, no. 39942/13, § 35, 25 January 2018 with further references), or where the applicants had "a claim which was sufficiently established to be enforceable" (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, § 74, ECHR 2002-VII) or where the persons concerned were entitled to rely on the fact that a specific legal act would not be retrospectively invalidated to their detriment (see Kopecký, cited above, § 47, and Noreikiene and Noreika v. Lithuania, no. 17285/08, § 36, 24 November 2015) and where such legal acts could consist of a contract, for example (see Stretch v. the United Kingdom, no. 44277/98, § 35, 24 June 2003, and Fedorenko v. Ukraine, no. 25921/02, §§ 23-24, 1 June 2006).

  In that case, the Court held that the applicant was to be regarded as having at least a legitimate expectation of exercising the option to renew [the existing contract of land lease] and that this might be regarded, for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as attached to the property rights granted to him by Dorchester under the lease (see Stretch v. the United Kingdom, no. 44277/98, § 35, 24 June 2003).

• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04

  SHESTI MAI ENGINEERING OOD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Moreover, there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the breach (see, among other authorities, Stretch v. the United Kingdom, no. 44277/98, § 47, 24 June 2003).
• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 18076/12

  VJOLA SH.P.K. AND DE SH.P.K. v. ALBANIA

  The Court reiterates that a lease may be considered a proprietary interest attracting the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, Stretch v. the United Kingdom, no. 44277/98, §§ 32-35, 24 June 2003; Bruncrona v. Finland, no. 41673/98, § 79, 16 November 2004; and Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim ?žirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, § 140, ECHR 2005-VI).
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 34943/06

  PINDSTRUP MOSEBRUG A/S v. DENMARK

  Moreover, "possessions" within the meaning of the provision can be "existing possessions" or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right (see, inter alia, Stretch v. the United Kingdom, no. 44277/98, §§ 32-40, 24 June 2003; Iatridis v. Greece, no. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 1999-II; and Bruncrona v. Finland, no. 41673/98, §§ 78-79, 16 November 2004).
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 26635/12

  ALEKSANDRIJA A DOOEL v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  The Court considers that the situation in the present case is different from those cases where it found that the applicants had had "legitimate expectations" based on a reasonably justified reliance on a legal document on the basis of which they had incurred financial obligations and which had subsequently been retrospectively invalidated to the applicants" detriment (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others, cited above, § 51, and Stretch v. the United Kingdom, no. 44277/98, §§ 33-35, 24 June 2003).
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 50853/06

  KVASNEVSKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  In support of their argument they relied on the case of Stretch v. the United Kingdom (no. 44277/98, 24 June 2003).
• EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 33690/06

  ZABOR v. POLAND

  It recalls that lease may be considered a proprietary interest attracting the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, Stretch v. the United Kingdom, no. 44277/98, §§ 32-35, 24 June 2003; Bruncrona v. Finland, no. 41673/98, § 79, 16 November 2004; Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, § 140, ECHR 2005-VI) and thus this provision is applicable in the case.
• EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 39942/13

  CHORBOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 50346/07

  DIMITAR YANAKIEV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 26659/08

  MILASINOVIC v. CROATIA