Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 25.10.2012 - 71243/01 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
VISTINS ET PEREPJOLKINS c. LETTONIE
Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Exception préliminaire rejetée (Article 35-3-b - Aucun préjudice important) Violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Protection de la propriété (article 1 al. 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Privation de propriété) Satisfaction équitable réservée ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
VISTINS AND PEREPJOLKINS v. LATVIA
Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-b - No significant disadvantage) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property) Just satisfaction reserved (englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
VISTINS AND PEREPJOLKINS v. LATVIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
[DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-b - No significant disadvantage) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property) Just satisfaction reserved ...
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
Vistiŋs and Perepjolkins v. Latvia
[11.01.2012]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 71243/01
- EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 71243/01
- EGMR, 25.10.2012 - 71243/01
- EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 71243/01
- EGMR, 16.09.2015 - 71243/01
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 02.03.2005 - 71916/01
Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetzes über die Wiedergutmachung von …
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2012 - 71243/01
71916/01, 71917/01 and 10260/02, §§ 77 and 111-112, ECHR 2005-V, and Jahn and Others, cited above). - EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 57381/00
KOZLOVA ET SMIRNOVA contre la LETTONIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2012 - 71243/01
Even though the measure was not formally taken under the legislation on denationalisation or land and real-estate reform - which was removed from the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the reservation made by Latvia (see Kozlova and Smirnova v. Latvia (dec.), no. 57381/00, ECHR 2001-XI, and Liepajnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, § 49, 2 November 2010) - the Court finds it appropriate to go beyond a formalistic approach and to consider the land reform in its broader sense. - EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87
RUIZ-MATEOS c. ESPAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2012 - 71243/01
However, in certain exceptional situations the Court has been prepared to accept, albeit implicitly, the existence of special laws laying down specific conditions that apply to one or more named individuals (see Former King of Greece and Others (merits), cited above, §§ 80-82; The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-A; Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B; and, under Article 6 § 1, Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 23 June 1993, Series A no. 262).
- EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87
RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2012 - 71243/01
However, in certain exceptional situations the Court has been prepared to accept, albeit implicitly, the existence of special laws laying down specific conditions that apply to one or more named individuals (see Former King of Greece and Others (merits), cited above, §§ 80-82; The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-A; Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B; and, under Article 6 § 1, Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 23 June 1993, Series A no. 262). - EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94
CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2012 - 71243/01
In determining whether this requirement is met, the Court recognises 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, 10.07.2003 - 55794/00
EFSTATHIOU AND MICHAÏLIDIS & Co. MOTEL AMERIKA v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2012 - 71243/01
In many cases of lawful expropriation, such as a distinct taking of land for road construction or other "public interest" purposes, only full compensation may be regarded as reasonably related to the value of the property (see Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC] (just satisfaction), no. 25701/94, § 78, 28 November 2002; see also, mutatis mutandis, Papachelas v. Greece [GC], no. 31423/96, § 48, ECHR 1999-II; and Efstathiou and Michailidis & Co. Motel Amerika v. Greece, no. 55794/00, § 26, ECHR 2003-IX). - EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 62543/00
GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2012 - 71243/01
This also holds true in respect of urban and regional planning policies (see, under Article 6 § 1, Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 70, ECHR 2004-III). - EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 37586/06
LIEPAJNIEKS v. LATVIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2012 - 71243/01
Even though the measure was not formally taken under the legislation on denationalisation or land and real-estate reform - which was removed from the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the reservation made by Latvia (see Kozlova and Smirnova v. Latvia (dec.), no. 57381/00, ECHR 2001-XI, and Liepajnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, § 49, 2 November 2010) - the Court finds it appropriate to go beyond a formalistic approach and to consider the land reform in its broader sense. - EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 36548/97
PINCOVÁ ET PINC c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2012 - 71243/01
They compared their case to that of Pincová and Pinc v. the Czech Republic (no. 36548/97, ECHR 2002-VIII), where compensation amounting to one-fifth of the expropriated property's market value had been considered unacceptable.
- EuGH, 05.05.2022 - C-83/20
Die der Maßnahme zur Abwicklung der Banco Espírito Santo zugrundeliegende …
Die zweite und die dritte Regel betreffen besondere Beispiele für Eingriffe in das Eigentumsrecht und sind im Licht des in der ersten Regel aufgestellten Grundsatzes auszulegen (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 25. März 2014, Vistins und Perepjolkins/Lettland, CE:ECHR:2012:1025JUD007124301, § 93 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).