Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAUKSTIS v. LITHUANIA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PAUKSTIS v. LITHUANIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 15.03.2007 - 43278/98

  VELIKOVI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 17467/07

  The Court takes cognisance of the fact that the present case concerns restitution of property and is not unmindful of the complexity of the legal and factual issues a State faces when resolving such questions (see Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, § 166, 15 March 2007).
• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 51362/99

  ENEVA AND DOBREV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 17467/07

  The Court takes cognisance of the fact that the present case concerns restitution of property and is not unmindful of the complexity of the legal and factual issues a State faces when resolving such questions (see Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, § 166, 15 March 2007).
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 48380/99

  TODOROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 17467/07

  The Court takes cognisance of the fact that the present case concerns restitution of property and is not unmindful of the complexity of the legal and factual issues a State faces when resolving such questions (see Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, § 166, 15 March 2007).

 
• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 53367/99

  STOYANOVA AND IVANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 17467/07

  The Court takes cognisance of the fact that the present case concerns restitution of property and is not unmindful of the complexity of the legal and factual issues a State faces when resolving such questions (see Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, § 166, 15 March 2007).
• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 194/02

  NIKOLOVI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 17467/07

  The Court takes cognisance of the fact that the present case concerns restitution of property and is not unmindful of the complexity of the legal and factual issues a State faces when resolving such questions (see Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, § 166, 15 March 2007).
• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 73465/01

  TZILEVI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 17467/07

  The Court takes cognisance of the fact that the present case concerns restitution of property and is not unmindful of the complexity of the legal and factual issues a State faces when resolving such questions (see Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, § 166, 15 March 2007).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 17467/07

  Lastly, the Court has held that both an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions and an abstention from action must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 69, Series A no. 52).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 17467/07

  In the context of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, those positive obligations may require the State to take the measures necessary to protect the right of property (see Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 96, ECHR 2002-VII, with further references; mutatis mutandis, Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290; Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, § 31, Series A no. 297-C; and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 143, ECHR 2004-V).
• EGMR, 27.10.1994 - 18535/91

  KROON AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 17467/07

  In the context of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, those positive obligations may require the State to take the measures necessary to protect the right of property (see Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 96, ECHR 2002-VII, with further references; mutatis mutandis, Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290; Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, § 31, Series A no. 297-C; and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 143, ECHR 2004-V).
• EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 36548/97

  PINCOVÁ ET PINC c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 17467/07

  Even so, on numerous occasions in the context of revocation of property titles granted erroneously, the Court has emphasised that the principle of good governance may not only impose on the authorities an obligation to act promptly to correct their mistake (see Moskal v. Poland, no. 10373/05, § 69, 15 September 2009), but may also necessitate the payment of adequate compensation or another type of appropriate reparation to a bona fide former holder (see Pincová and Pinc v. the Czech Republic, no. 36548/97, § 53, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Toscuta and Others v. Romania, no. 36900/03, § 38, 25 November 2008).
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 17978/05

  ALBERGAS ET ARLAUSKAS c. LITUANIE
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 17120/04

  BERGAUER AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 12278/03

  PADALEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 70520/10

  BEINAROVIC AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  For relevant domestic practice as to the principles of restoration of property rights in Lithuania, see Jasiuniene v. Lithuania (no. 41510/98, § 22, 6 March 2003), Igariene and Petrauskiene v. Lithuania (no. 26892/05, §§ 24-25, 21 July 2009), Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania (no. 17978/05, §§ 26-33, 27 May 2014), and Paukstis v. Lithuania (no. 17467/07, §§ 40-41 and 46-48, 24 November 2015).

  Even so, it has held that the state of uncertainty in which the applicants might find themselves as a result of delays attributable to the authorities is a factor to be taken into account in assessing the State's conduct (see Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 151 and 185, ECHR 2004-V; Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98 and 8 others, § 166, 15 March 2007; Igariene and Petrauskiene, no. 26892/05, § 58, 21 July 2009; and Paukstis v. Lithuania, no. 17467/07, § 84, 24 November 2015).

• EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 55056/10

  SIMAITIENE v. LITHUANIA

  For relevant domestic practice as to the principles of restitution in Lithuania and fair compensation, see Jasiuniene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 22, 6 March 2003; Uzkureliene and Others v. Lithuania, no. 62988/00, § 27, 7 April 2005; Jurevicius v. Lithuania, no. 30165/02, § 20, 14 November 2006; Igariene and Petrauskiene, cited above, §§ 24-25; Aleksa, cited above, §§ 37-38; Nekvedavicius v. Lithuania, no. 1471/05, §§ 29-31, 10 December 2013; Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania, no. 17978/05, §§ 26-33, 27 May 2014; and Paukstis v. Lithuania, no. 17467/07, §§ 40-41 and 46-48, 24 November 2015.

  The Court takes cognisance of the fact that the present case concerns the restitution of property and is not unmindful of the complexity of the legal and factual issues that a State faces when resolving such questions (see Aleksa v. Lithuania, no. 27576/05, § 86, 21 July 2009; Igariene and Petrauskiene v. Lithuania, no. 26892/05, § 58, 21 July 2009, and Paukstis v. Lithuania, no. 17467/07, § 84, 24 November 2015).

• EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 51752/10

  KAVALIAUSKAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  For relevant domestic practice as to the principles of restitution in Lithuania and fair compensation, see Jasiuniene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 22, 6 March 2003; Uzkureliene and Others v. Lithuania, no. 62988/00, § 27, 7 April 2005; Jurevicius v. Lithuania, no. 30165/02, § 20, 14 November 2006; Igariene and Petrauskiene, cited above, §§ 24-25; Aleksa, cited above, §§ 37-38; Nekvedavicius v. Lithuania, no. 1471/05, §§ 29-31, 10 December 2013; Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania, no. 17978/05, §§ 26-33, 27 May 2014; and Paukstis v. Lithuania, no. 17467/07, §§ 40-41 and 46-48, 24 November 2015.

  The Court has also held that in regulating the restitution process the Contracting States have wide discretion, including over the rules of how compensation for long-extinguished property rights should be assessed (see Jantner v. Slovakia, no. 39050/97, § 34, 4 March 2003; Bergauer and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 17120/04, 13 December 2005; and Paukstis v. Lithuania, no. 17467/07, § 74, 24 November 2015).

• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 52815/15

  GEGLIS v. LITHUANIA

  It follows that certain impediments to the realisation of an applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions are not in themselves open to criticism (see Aleksa v. Lithuania, no. 27576/05, § 86, 21 July 2009; Igariene and Petrauskiene v. Lithuania, no. 26892/05, § 58, 21 July 2009; Paukstis v. Lithuania, no. 17467/07, § 84, 24 November 2015; ? imaitiene v. Lithuania, no. 55056/10, § 45, 21 February 2017; and Grigolovic, cited above, § 44).
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 37723/11

  CERNIAK v. LITHUANIA

  In this connection, the Court takes note of the Government's position that the cooperation of applicants with the public authorities in the restitution process is of key importance when determining the proportionality of the interference with their property rights (see paragraph 29 above; see also Paukstis v. Lithuania, no. 17467/07, §§ 85-86, 24 November 2015, and Valanciene v. Lithuania, no. 2657/10, §§ 71-72, 18 April 2017).