Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KURBAN v. TURKEY

  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 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence);Non-pecuniary damage - claim ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KURBAN v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 75414/10

  v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 64, ECHR 2007-I; and Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, § 93, 13 March 2012).

  v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 64, ECHR 2007-I).

• EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 44277/98

  STRETCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 75414/10

  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, 01.06.2006 - 25921/02

  FEDORENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 75414/10

  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 Fedorenko v. Ukraine (no. 25921/02, § 25, 1 June 2006), the context of the case was that the applicant had contracted to sell his house to the State, and the dispute concerned a clause regarding the determination of the price, which thus had a direct impact on the value of the applicant's existing property in the context of its sale.

 
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 23780/08

  MALIK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 75414/10

  v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 64, ECHR 2007-I; and Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, § 93, 13 March 2012).
• EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 65500/01

  KURTULMUS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 75414/10

  For instance, to mention just one, such a position would call into question the Court's settled case-law in the context of civil service/public employment law, where the Court has consistently held that a public servant's removal from office and the resultant loss of future income does not affect his or her "possessions" and thus does not engage the application of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Nazif Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 69912/01, 27 May 2004; Kurtulmus v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65500/01, ECHR 2006-II; and Buterlevici?«te v. Lithuania, no. 42139/08, § 70, 12 January 2016).
• EKMR, 26.10.1995 - 20087/92

  E.M. c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 75414/10

  In its case-law the Court, and formerly the Commission, have consistently held that "future income" can only constitute a "possession" to the extent that it has already been earned, or is definitely payable (see Batelaan and Huiges v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 10438/83, D.R. 41, p. 176: E.M. v. Norway (dec.), no. 20087/92, 26 October 1995 [Plenary Commission]; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, 6 February 2003; Anheuser-Busch Inc.
• EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 69912/01

  NAFIZ YAVUZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 75414/10

  For instance, to mention just one, such a position would call into question the Court's settled case-law in the context of civil service/public employment law, where the Court has consistently held that a public servant's removal from office and the resultant loss of future income does not affect his or her "possessions" and thus does not engage the application of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Nazif Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 69912/01, 27 May 2004; Kurtulmus v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65500/01, ECHR 2006-II; and Buterlevici?«te v. Lithuania, no. 42139/08, § 70, 12 January 2016).
• EKMR, 03.10.1984 - 10438/83

  BATELAAN et HUIGES c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 75414/10

  In its case-law the Court, and formerly the Commission, have consistently held that "future income" can only constitute a "possession" to the extent that it has already been earned, or is definitely payable (see Batelaan and Huiges v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 10438/83, D.R. 41, p. 176: E.M. v. Norway (dec.), no. 20087/92, 26 October 1995 [Plenary Commission]; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, 6 February 2003; Anheuser-Busch Inc.
• EGMR, 06.02.2003 - 71630/01

  A. W. und andere gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 75414/10

  In its case-law the Court, and formerly the Commission, have consistently held that "future income" can only constitute a "possession" to the extent that it has already been earned, or is definitely payable (see Batelaan and Huiges v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 10438/83, D.R. 41, p. 176: E.M. v. Norway (dec.), no. 20087/92, 26 October 1995 [Plenary Commission]; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, 6 February 2003; Anheuser-Busch Inc.
• EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 17285/08

  NOREIKIENE AND NOREIKA AGAINST LITHUANIAAND 4 OTHER CASES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 75414/10

  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).
• EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 39942/13

  CHORBOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 2130/10

  Vorliegen einer Menschenrechtsverletzung durch die Feststellung einer erneuten …
• EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09

  ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 72858/13

  KRAYEVA v. UKRAINE

  Moreover, the rule of law, one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society, is inherent in all the articles of the Convention (see, for example, Lekic v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, 11 December 2018, § 94; Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, 22 June 2004, § 147, or Kurban v. Turkey, no. 75414/10, 24 November 2020, § 76).
• EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 17060/15

  VOD BAUR IMPEX S.R.L. v. ROMANIA

  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, or where the applicants had "a claim which was sufficiently established to be enforceable", 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 and where such legal acts could consist of a contract, for example (see Kurban v. Turkey, no. 75414/10, § 63, 24 November 2020, and the cases cited therein).