Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 25714/04, 1057/07, 48342/06, 876/06 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PETRESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Partly struck out of the list Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 68479/01
RADOVICI AND STANESCU v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 25714/04
The facts and legal situation in all cases are similar, if not identical, to those presented in the leading case of Radovici and Stanescu v. Romania (nos. 68479/01, 71351/01 and 71352/01, ECHR 2006-...XIII (extracts)).It held that the system, as introduced by the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 40/1999, had imposed an excessive burden on landlords in terms of their ability to dispose of property and had found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on this account (see Radovici and Stanescu v. Romania, nos. 68479/01, 71351/01 and 71352/01, § 90, ECHR 2006-...XIII (extracts), Popescu and Toader v. Romania, no. 27086/02, § 38, 8 March 2007, and Postolache v. Romania, no. 24171/02, § 35, 16 December 2008).
- EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03
SULWINSKA v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 25714/04
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03). - EGMR, 08.03.2007 - 27086/02
POPESCU ET TOADER c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 25714/04
It held that the system, as introduced by the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 40/1999, had imposed an excessive burden on landlords in terms of their ability to dispose of property and had found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on this account (see Radovici and Stanescu v. Romania, nos. 68479/01, 71351/01 and 71352/01, § 90, ECHR 2006-...XIII (extracts), Popescu and Toader v. Romania, no. 27086/02, § 38, 8 March 2007, and Postolache v. Romania, no. 24171/02, § 35, 16 December 2008). - EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 24171/02
POSTOLACHE c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 25714/04
It held that the system, as introduced by the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 40/1999, had imposed an excessive burden on landlords in terms of their ability to dispose of property and had found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on this account (see Radovici and Stanescu v. Romania, nos. 68479/01, 71351/01 and 71352/01, § 90, ECHR 2006-...XIII (extracts), Popescu and Toader v. Romania, no. 27086/02, § 38, 8 March 2007, and Postolache v. Romania, no. 24171/02, § 35, 16 December 2008).