Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 37679/97, 37682/97   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2000,41512
EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 37679/97, 37682/97 (https://dejure.org/2000,41512)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.09.2000 - 37679/97, 37682/97 (https://dejure.org/2000,41512)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. September 2000 - 37679/97, 37682/97 (https://dejure.org/2000,41512)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2000,41512) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    JOHN AND MARGARET SLOUGH & A.J. AND W. KING AND 10 OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
    Inadmissible (englisch)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

    SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 37679/97
    The applicants accept that the decision to prohibit handguns is capable in principle of amounting to a general interest within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They refer to the Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982 (Series A no. 52, p. 24, §§ 69 and 73) and submit 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 the applicants" fundamental rights.

    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, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

    BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 37679/97
    Accordingly, the Article 13 complaint is unsustainable (see the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 24, § 54).
  • EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

    AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 37679/97
    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, 24.06.1993 - 14556/89

    PAPAMICHALOPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 37679/97
    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 - 37679/97
    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.
  • EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

    FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 37679/97
    In these circumstances, the Court shares the view of the Government that the applicants 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).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

    LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 37679/97
    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, 26.06.1986 - 8543/79

    VAN MARLE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 37679/97
    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).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht