Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHORBOV v. BULGARIA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13+P1-1-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - ...

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 44277/98

  STRETCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 39942/13

  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 Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 49 and 52, ECHR 2004-IX; Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, § 66, ECHR 2005-IX; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 94, ECHR 2007-II; and Parrillo, cited above, § 213), 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).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 39942/13

  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 Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 49 and 52, ECHR 2004-IX; Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, § 66, ECHR 2005-IX; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 94, ECHR 2007-II; and Parrillo, cited above, § 213), 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).
• EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 17285/08

  NOREIKIENE AND NOREIKA AGAINST LITHUANIAAND 4 OTHER CASES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 39942/13

  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 Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 49 and 52, ECHR 2004-IX; Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, § 66, ECHR 2005-IX; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 94, ECHR 2007-II; and Parrillo, cited above, § 213), 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).

 
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 39942/13

  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 Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 49 and 52, ECHR 2004-IX; Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, § 66, ECHR 2005-IX; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 94, ECHR 2007-II; and Parrillo, cited above, § 213), 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).
• EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  PARRILLO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 39942/13

  The Court reiterates that the autonomous meaning of the concept of "possessions" under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention has been set out in a number of earlier cases (see, among many other examples, Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 62, ECHR 2010; Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, § 49, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 211, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 44912/98

  KOPECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 39942/13

  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 Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 49 and 52, ECHR 2004-IX; Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, § 66, ECHR 2005-IX; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 94, ECHR 2007-II; and Parrillo, cited above, § 213), 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).

• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 40669/16

  NINA DIMITROVA v. BULGARIA

  [2] The rules which had served a similar role in the 1952 Code of Civil Procedure (which was superseded by the 2007 Code of Civil Procedure) were described briefly in Chorbov v. Bulgaria (no. 39942/13, §§ 18-22, 25 January 2018).
• 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).
• EGMR, 05.07.2018 - 41299/09

  BOYADZHIEVA AND GLORIA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED EOOD v. BULGARIA

  This principle is even more relevant where the principal compensation does not stem from an obligation of the Respondent Government under national law (contrast Chorbov v. Bulgaria, no. 39942/13, § 56, 25 January 2018).
• EGMR, 06.09.2018 - 2866/13

  UZUNOVA AND SEID v. BULGARIA

  The Court has held on numerous occasions that while member States have a wide margin of appreciation in providing such a remedy in a manner consistent with their own legal system and traditions, a remedy with respect to delayed enforcement of claims against the State should still exist (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 186-187, ECHR 2006-V; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 96-100, ECHR 2009, and Chorbov v. Bulgaria, no. 39942/13, § 47, 25 January 2018).