Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROUSK v. SWEDEN

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property) Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Rousk v. Sweden

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 27183/04
• EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 27183/04

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 27183/04

  Thus, the Court considers that, in order to ensure that the remedies and procedural safeguards existing in domestic law were in fact available and sufficient, not only in theory but also in practice (see, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII), the eviction should have been postponed until the underlying contentious issues had been resolved.
• EGMR, 30.08.2007 - 44302/02

  J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LTD ET J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LAND LTD c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 27183/04

  However, they submitted that the sale served the purpose of securing the payment of taxes and therefore, in accordance with the Court's case-law (J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, §§ 65-66, ECHR 2007-III, and Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands, 23 February 1995, § 59, Series A no. 306-B), should be considered as a control of use of the applicant's property not as a deprivation of it.
• EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 25149/03

  Rechtssache V. H. gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 27183/04

  Thus, having regard to what has been stated above and the facts of the present case, the Court finds that the unilateral declaration does not offer satisfactory redress to the applicant and that, consequently, the Government have failed to establish a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see, Prencipe v. Monaco, no. 43376/06, § 63, 16 July 2009; see also, by contrast, Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 37453/97, §§ 23-24, ECHR 2001-VI, and Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, §§ 34-37, ECHR 2005-IX).

 
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 27183/04

  It contains three distinct rules which have been frequently repeated in the Court's case-law since being set out in the case of Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden (judgment of 23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52):.
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 43586/04

  ANGELOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 27183/04

  It will, however, depend on the particular circumstances whether the unilateral declaration offers a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI, and Angelov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 43586/04, § 12, 4 November 2010).
• EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

  Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 27183/04

  The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, among other authorities, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1210, § 66, and Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 43, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 37453/97

  AKMAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 27183/04

  Thus, having regard to what has been stated above and the facts of the present case, the Court finds that the unilateral declaration does not offer satisfactory redress to the applicant and that, consequently, the Government have failed to establish a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see, Prencipe v. Monaco, no. 43376/06, § 63, 16 July 2009; see also, by contrast, Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 37453/97, §§ 23-24, ECHR 2001-VI, and Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, §§ 34-37, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  JOKELA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 27183/04

  He pointed out that, according to the Court's case-law, proceedings leading to a possible interference with a person's property rights must afford the individual a reasonable opportunity of putting his or her case to the responsible authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging the measures (Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.01.2023 - C-598/21

  Vseobecná úverová banka - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Verbraucherschutz - …

  Bezug genommen wird auf die Urteile des EGMR vom 13. Mai 2008, McCann/Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2008:0513JUD001900904, § 50), und vom 25. Juli 2013, Rousk/Schweden (CE:ECHR:2013:0725JUD002718304, § 137).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 21.11.2013 - C-482/12

  Macinský und Macinská - Zulässigkeit - Richtlinie 93/13/EWG - …

  45 - Vgl. in diesem Sinne Urteile des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (EGMR) vom 25. Juli 2013, Rousk/Schweden (Beschwerde Nr. 27183/04), betreffend den öffentlichen Verkauf der Wohnung des Schuldners und deren Räumung auf Antrag einer staatlichen Stelle zur Befriedigung einer Steuerforderung in Höhe von 6 721 SEK (ungefähr 800 Euro) (vgl. insbesondere die Ausführungen des EGMR in §§ 91 und 137 bis 139), und vom 16. Juli 2009, Zehentner/Österreich (Beschwerde Nr. 20082/02), betreffend die gerichtliche Veräußerung einer privaten Liegenschaft zur Sicherung der Beitreibung einer Schuld von ungefähr 2 150 Euro in einem Rechtsstreit zwischen zwei Privatparteien, in dem die Schuldnerin geschäftsunfähig war und der Forderung daher nicht adäquat entgegentreten konnte (vgl. insbesondere §§ 54, 59, 61, 75 und 76).