Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 73369/01 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,52245) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
RAJNAI v. HUNGARY
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Inadmissible under Art. 14 Inadmissible under P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings ...
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 11.03.2003 - 73369/01
- EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 73369/01
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 73369/01
The Court considers that the limitation on the number of bees which could be kept by the applicant amounted to a control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which authorises States to enact "such laws as [they deem] necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest" (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, pp. 17-18, § 51, and Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, pp. 29-30, §§ 62-63). - EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 73369/01
In other words, it must be determined whether a fair balance was struck between the demands of the general interest and the interest of the individual or individuals concerned (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 26, § 69, and p. 28, § 73, and James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 34, § 50). - EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80
AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 73369/01
The Court considers that the limitation on the number of bees which could be kept by the applicant amounted to a control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which authorises States to enact "such laws as [they deem] necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest" (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, pp. 17-18, § 51, and Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, pp. 29-30, §§ 62-63). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 73369/01
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).