Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANDREWS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 37657/97

  In these circumstances, the Court shares the view of the Government that the applicant had no legitimate expectation that the use of particular types of firearm, including handguns, would continue to be lawful (cf the Fredin v. Sweden judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192, pp. 17-18, § 54).

  The Court recalls that Article 14 protects against different treatment of individuals in relevantly similar positions in the enjoyment of their Convention rights (cf the Fredin v. Sweden judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192, p. 19, § 60).

• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 37657/97

  The applicant refers to the Air Canada v. the United Kingdom judgment of 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A, and submits that the Court must decide whether a fair balance has been struck between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of his fundamental rights and, further, whether the requirement that there be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued has been respected.

  They must be construed in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see, for example, the Air Canada v. the United Kingdom judgment of 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A, p. 15, §§ 29 and 30).

• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 37657/97

  Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs and resources, the national authorities must enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining not only the necessity of the measure of control concerned but also the types of loss resulting from the measure for which compensation will be made; the legislature's judgment in this connection will in principle be respected unless it is manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable (cf the Lithgow v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 51, § 122, and the Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC] judgment of 29 April 1999, § 75).

 
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 37657/97

  The Court recalls that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees, in substance, the right to property and comprises three distinct rules (see, for example, the Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 24, § 61).
• EGMR, 26.06.1986 - 8543/79

  VAN MARLE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 37657/97

  The Court recalls its case-law that goodwill may be an element in the valuation of a professional practice, but that future income itself is only a "possession" once it has been earned, or an enforceable claim to it exists (no. 37683/97, Ian Edgar [Liverpool] Ltd. v. the United Kingdom, Dec. 25.01.00, Section III, see also the Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101, p. 13, §§ 39-41).
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14556/89

  PAPAMICHALOPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 37657/97

  Whilst it is possible that in certain circumstances there may be a de facto expropriation of possessions even without any formal alienation, on the ground that property has become wholly unusable (see, for example, Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 260-B, p. 70, §§ 43-45), the present application does not disclose any such circumstances.
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84

  TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 37657/97

  Similarly, in its Tre Traktörer v. Sweden judgment of 7 July 1989 (Series A no. 159, pp. 21-22, §§ 54-55), the Court assessed the loss of a restaurant business consequent upon withdrawal of a liquor licence as a control of use rather than as a deprivation of possessions.