Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOSTIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of P1-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - Government to enforce a demolition order (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 41760/04

  It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found and to redress, in so far as possible, the effects thereof (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 41760/04

  Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees, inter alia, the right of property, which includes the right to enjoy one's property peacefully, as well as the right to dispose of it (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 63, Series A no. 31).

• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04

  SHESTI MAI ENGINEERING OOD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  While Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is essentially concerned with preventing unwarranted State interference with property rights, in certain situations the effective enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by that provision may entail the adoption of positive measures, even in cases involving litigation between private individuals or companies (see Sovtransavto Holding, cited above, § 96; Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 143, ECHR 2004-V; Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 71186/01, §§ 90-91, 7 June 2005; Kostic v. Serbia, no. 41760/04, § 66, 25 November 2008; Belev and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 45394/06

  KRSTIC v. SERBIA

  Having regard to these considerations, the Court considers that the applicant's entitlement to enforcement subsisted subsequent to the Convention's entry into force on 3 March 2004 and observes that the impugned non-enforcement has continued to date (see, mutatis mutandis, Kostic v. Serbia, no. 41760/04, § 46, 25 November 2008).