Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NERVA ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Non-violation de P1-1 non-violation de l'art. 14+P1-1 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NERVA AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of P1-1 No violation of Art. 14+P1-1 (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 42295/98
• EGMR, 11.09.2001 - 42295/98
• EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 42295/98

Wird zitiert von ... (28)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 42295/98

  However, this is too imprecise a basis on which to found a legitimate expectation which could give rise to "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; and Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 42295/98

  However, this is too imprecise a basis on which to found a legitimate expectation which could give rise to "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; and Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 42295/98

  Although the heirs of a deceased applicant cannot claim a general right that the examination of the application brought by the latter be continued by the Court (see Scherer v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1994, Series A no. 287), the Court has accepted on a number of occasions that close relatives of a deceased applicant are entitled to take his or her place (see Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 19, § 37, and Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 8, § 2).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1994 - 17116/90

  SCHERER v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 42295/98

  Although the heirs of a deceased applicant cannot claim a general right that the examination of the application brought by the latter be continued by the Court (see Scherer v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1994, Series A no. 287), the Court has accepted on a number of occasions that close relatives of a deceased applicant are entitled to take his or her place (see Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 19, § 37, and Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 8, § 2).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 42295/98

  Although the heirs of a deceased applicant cannot claim a general right that the examination of the application brought by the latter be continued by the Court (see Scherer v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1994, Series A no. 287), the Court has accepted on a number of occasions that close relatives of a deceased applicant are entitled to take his or her place (see Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 19, § 37, and Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 8, § 2).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 42295/98

  However, this is too imprecise a basis on which to found a legitimate expectation which could give rise to "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; and Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII).

• 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).
• EGMR, 29.05.2001 - 63716/00

  SAWONIUK contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Etant donné que le recours formé par le requérant devant la Cour d'appel avait été examiné lors d'une audience et que celle-ci avait rendu un arrêt étoffé, la Cour ne pense pas que le refus d'autoriser le requérant à se pourvoir devant la Chambre des lords sans donner de raison particulière ait méconnu les exigences de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (voir aussi Nerva c. Royaume-Uni, (déc.) no 42295/98, 11 juillet 2000, non publiée).
• EGMR, 04.02.2014 - 25376/06

  CENI c. ITALIE

  En revanche, la Cour estime que l'espoir de voir reconnaître un droit de propriété que l'on est dans l'impossibilité d'exercer effectivement ne peut être considéré comme un « bien'au sens de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention, et qu'il en va de même d'une créance conditionnelle s'éteignant du fait de la non-réalisation de la condition (Malhous c. République tchèque (déc.), no 33071/96, CEDH 2000-XII, Prince Hans-Adam II c. Allemagne [GC], no 42527/98, § 85, CEDH 2001-VIII, et Nerva c. Royaume-Uni, no 42295/98, § 43, 24 septembre 2002).

 
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 15973/90

  LORDOS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  42908/98, 44038/98, 44816/98 and 7319/02, § 85, 9 June 2005; and Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 42295/98, § 33, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 45653/99

  ANDREOU v. TURKEY

  For the purposes of the instant case, the Court is prepared to accept that the applicant's husband and children can pursue the application initially brought by Mrs Georgia Andreou (see, mutatis mutandis, Kirilova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 42908/98, 44038/98, 44816/98 and 7319/02, § 85, 9 June 2005, and Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 42295/98, § 33, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 21689/93

  AHMET ÖZKAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Although the heirs of a deceased applicant cannot claim a general right to have the examination of the application brought by the latter continued (see Scherer v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1994, Series A no. 287), the Court has accepted on a number of occasions that close relatives of a deceased applicant are entitled to take his or her place (see Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 8, § 2, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI, and Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 42295/98, § 33, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 46154/11

  VALLE PIERIMPIÈ SOCIETÀ AGRICOLA S.P.A c. ITALIE

  En revanche, la Cour estime que l'espoir de voir reconnaître un droit de propriété que l'on est dans l'impossibilité d'exercer effectivement ne peut être considéré comme un « bien'au sens de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention, et qu'il en va de même d'une créance conditionnelle s'éteignant du fait de la non-réalisation de la condition (Malhous c. République tchèque (déc.), no 33071/96, CEDH 2000-XII ; Prince Hans-Adam II c. Allemagne [GC], no 42527/98, § 85, CEDH 2001-VIII ; et Nerva c. Royaume-Uni, no 42295/98, § 43, 24 septembre 2002).
• EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 44277/98

  STRETCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  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, 29.07.2010 - 8549/06

  STRELTSOV AND OTHER

  Insofar as the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are concerned, the Court on several occasions continued the examination of cases involving pecuniary claims that were transferable to the deceased applicant's heirs (see, for example, Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 42295/98, § 33, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 16682/90

  LOIZOU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  For the purposes of the instant case, the Court is prepared to accept that the administrator of applicant no. 9's estate can pursue the application initially brought by Mr Kostas Kalisperas (see, mutatis mutandis, Kirilova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 42908/98, 44038/98, 44816/98 and 7319/02, § 85, 9 June 2005, and Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 42295/98, § 33, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 19900/92

  EPIPHANIOU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 18360/91

  SOPHIA ANDREOU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 18407/91

  KYRIAKOU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 18404/91

  NICOLA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 30733/08

  HÜLYA EBRU DEMIREL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 2982/05

  SHURYGINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 53637/08

  ZHITNIKOV AND KOLOSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 53678/08

  VERIGIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 53664/08

  MATVIYENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 23593/03

  BELSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 37395/97

  HADJIPROCOPIOU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 39970/98

  HADJITHOMAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 16161/90

  SOLOMONIDES v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 22479/05

  AVYIDI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 18931/09

  ROMANAZZI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 47687/07

  GORANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 42908/98

  KIRILOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 11.09.2003 - 65368/01

  VERONESI et LUCISANO contre l'ITALIE