Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 49570/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,13911
EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 49570/11 (https://dejure.org/2013,13911)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25.06.2013 - 49570/11 (https://dejure.org/2013,13911)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25. Juni 2013 - 49570/11 (https://dejure.org/2013,13911)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,13911) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    GÁLL v. HUNGARY

    Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

  • EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

    JOKELA v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 49570/11
    It has already held that an interference cannot be legitimate in the absence of adversarial proceedings that comply with the principle of equality of arms, enabling argument to be presented on the issues relevant for the outcome of a case (see Hentrich, cited above, § 42; and Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV).
  • EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

    AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 49570/11
    The Court recalls that in certain circumstances loss of ownership of property resulting from a legislative measure or from an order of a court will not be equated with a "deprivation" of possessions: in the cases of AGOSI v. the United Kingdom (24 October 1986, Series A no. 108) and Air Canada v. the United Kingdom (5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A), the forfeiture or other loss of ownership was treated as a "control of use" of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 Protocol No. 1. In Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands (23 February 1995, Series A no. 306-B), impoundment was considered as a measure securing the payment of taxes within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 in fine, while in Beyeler (cited above), the interference with the applicant's property rights was examined under the first sentence of that Article.
  • EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26501/05

    EPARHIJA BUDIMLJANSKO-NIKSICKA AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 49570/11
    However, no "legitimate expectation" can be said to arise where there is a dispute as to the correct interpretation and application of domestic law and the applicant's submissions are subsequently rejected by the national courts (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 50, ECHR 2004-IX; Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 173, ECHR-2012; Eparhija Budimljansko-Niksicka and Others v. Montenegro (dec.), no. 26501/05, §§ 66 to 69, 9 October 2012).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

    LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 49570/11
    The Court recalls that the situation envisaged in the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 is only a particular instance of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property as guaranteed by the general rule set forth in the first sentence (see, for example, Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1986, § 106, Series A no. 102).
  • EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

    AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 49570/11
    The Court recalls that in certain circumstances loss of ownership of property resulting from a legislative measure or from an order of a court will not be equated with a "deprivation" of possessions: in the cases of AGOSI v. the United Kingdom (24 October 1986, Series A no. 108) and Air Canada v. the United Kingdom (5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A), the forfeiture or other loss of ownership was treated as a "control of use" of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 Protocol No. 1. In Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands (23 February 1995, Series A no. 306-B), impoundment was considered as a measure securing the payment of taxes within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 in fine, while in Beyeler (cited above), the interference with the applicant's property rights was examined under the first sentence of that Article.
  • EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 20844/09

    HASANI v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 49570/11
    Furthermore, a legislative amendment which removes a legitimate expectation may amount in its own right to an interference with "possessions" (see, mutatis mutandis, Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, §§ 67-71 and 79, ECHR 2005-IX; Draon v. France [GC], no. 1513/03, §§ 70-72, 6 October 2005; and Hasani v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20844/09, 30 September 2010).
  • EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

    SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUČDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 49570/11
    In its judgment of 23 September 1982 in the case of Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, the Court analysed Article 1 as comprising "three distinct rules": the first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of the peaceful enjoyment of property; the second rule, contained in the second sentence of the first paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and subjects it to certain conditions; the third rule, stated in the second paragraph, recognises that the Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest (Series A no. 52, § 61).
  • EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

    CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 49570/11
    However, no "legitimate expectation" can be said to arise where there is a dispute as to the correct interpretation and application of domestic law and the applicant's submissions are subsequently rejected by the national courts (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 50, ECHR 2004-IX; Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 173, ECHR-2012; Eparhija Budimljansko-Niksicka and Others v. Montenegro (dec.), no. 26501/05, §§ 66 to 69, 9 October 2012).
  • EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

    CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 49570/11
    In determining whether this requirement is met, the Court reiterates that the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 75, ECHR 1999- III, and Herrmann v. Germany [GC], no. 9300/07, § 74, 26 June 2012).
  • EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

    HENTRICH v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 49570/11
    In the context of tax collection, the Court considers that the suitability of methods is a consideration in the establishment of proportionality of a measure of interference (see, in the context of exercise of the State's right of pre-emption, Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 48, Series A no. 296 A).
  • BVerfG, 22.06.1995 - 2 BvL 37/91

    Einheitswerte II

  • BVerfG, 18.01.2006 - 2 BvR 2194/99

    Halbteilungsgrundsatz

  • EuGH, 12.10.2010 - C-499/08

    Es stellt eine Diskriminierung aufgrund des Alters dar, wenn einem Arbeitnehmer

  • EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

    GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  • EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 1828/06

    G.I.E.M. S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ITALY

    In order to ensure that this condition is satisfied, the applicable procedures should be considered from a general standpoint (see, among other authorities, AGOSI, cited above, § 55; Hentrich v. France, § 49, 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A; Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV; Gáll v. Hungary, no. 49570/11, § 63, 25 June 2013; and Sociedad Anónima del Ucieza v. Spain, no. 38963/08, § 74, 4 November 2014).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.11.2015 - C-191/14

    DOW Benelux - Umweltrecht - System für den Handel mit

    45 - EGMR, z. B. Urteile vom 28. September 2004, Kopecký/Slowakei (Beschwerde-Nr. 44912/98, Recueil des arręts et décisions 2004-IX, Rn. 35) und vom 25. Juni 2013, Gáll/Ungarn (Beschwerde-Nr. 49570/11, Rn. 33 und 34).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.11.2015 - C-389/14

    Esso Italiana u.a. - Umweltrecht - System für den Handel mit

    45 - EGMR, z. B. Urteile vom 28. September 2004, Kopecký/Slowakei (Beschwerde-Nr. 44912/98, Recueil des arręts et décisions 2004-IX, Rn. 35) und vom 25. Juni 2013, Gáll/Ungarn (Beschwerde-Nr. 49570/11, Rn. 33 und 34).
  • EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 19620/05

    UZAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    Pour s'assurer du respect de cette condition, il y a lieu de considérer les procédures applicables d'un point de vue général (voir, parmi d'autres, AGOSI c. Royaume-Uni, no 9118/80, § 55, 24 octobre 1986, Hentrich c. France, § 49, 22 septembre 1994, série A no 296-A, Jokela c. Finlande, no 28856/95, § 45, CEDH 2002-IV, Gáll c. Hongrie, no 49570/11, § 63, 25 juin 2013, Sociedad Anónima del Ucieza c. Espagne, no 38963/08, § 74, 4 novembre 2014, et G.I.E.M. S.R.L. et autres, précité, § 302).
  • EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 38963/08

    SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA DEL UCIEZA c. ESPAGNE

    Pour s'assurer du respect de cette condition, il y a lieu de considérer les procédures applicables d'un point de vue général (voir, parmi d'autres, Jokela c. Finlande, no 28856/95, § 45, CEDH 2002-IV, AGOSI c. Royaume-Uni, 24 octobre 1986, § 55, série A no 108, Hentrich v. France, précité, § 49 et Gáll c. Hongrie, no 49570/11, § 63, 25 juin 2013).
  • EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 65499/11

    KEPECS v. HUNGARY

    For relevant domestic law, see the judgments N.K.M. v. Hungary (no. 66529/11, §§ 8-19, 14 May 2013); Gáll v. Hungary (no. 49570/11, §§ 8-18, 25 June 2013) and R.Sz. v. Hungary (no. 41838/11, §§ 8-17, 2 July 2013).
  • EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 44197/11

    PATARICZA v. HUNGARY

    For relevant domestic law, see the judgments N.K.M. v. Hungary (no. 66529/11, §§ 8-19, 14 May 2013); Gáll v. Hungary (no. 49570/11, §§ 8-18, 25 June 2013) and R.Sz. v. Hungary (no. 41838/11, §§ 8-17, 2 July 2013).
  • EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 58689/11

    MESTER AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

    For relevant domestic law, see the judgments N.K.M. v. Hungary (no. 66529/11, §§ 8-19, 14 May 2013); Gáll v. Hungary (no. 49570/11, §§ 8-18, 25 June 2013) and R.Sz. v. Hungary (no. 41838/11, §§ 8-17, 2 July 2013).
  • EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 65245/11

    MACHER v. HUNGARY

    For relevant domestic law, see the judgments N.K.M. v. Hungary (no. 66529/11, §§ 8-19, 14 May 2013); Gáll v. Hungary (no. 49570/11, §§ 8-18, 25 June 2013) and R.Sz. v. Hungary (no. 41838/11, §§ 8-17, 2 July 2013).
  • EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 67542/11

    TÓTH v. HUNGARY

    For relevant domestic law, see the judgments N.K.M. v. Hungary (no. 66529/11, §§ 8-19, 14 May 2013); Gáll v. Hungary (no. 49570/11, §§ 8-18, 25 June 2013) and R.Sz. v. Hungary (no. 41838/11, §§ 8-17, 2 July 2013).
  • EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 26127/11

    SIKUTA v. HUNGARY

  • EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 22193/11

    Á.A. v. HUNGARY

  • EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 18229/11

    P.G. v. HUNGARY

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht