Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 64863/13 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,40188) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
YASAR v. ROMANIA
No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
DIKMEN AND EROL v. ROMANIA
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 28078/95
C.M. c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 64863/13
The Government did not argue that there was any possibility for the applicant to seek restoration of his possession (see, conversely, C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, ECHR 2001-VII). - EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 64863/13
The interference must strike a "fair balance" between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69 and 73, Series A no. 52, and S.C. Service Benz Com S.R.L., cited above, § 28). - EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 45291/06
PREVITI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 64863/13
In view of the above, the Court sees no sign of arbitrariness in the interpretation in question concerning the applicable domestic law (see, mutatis mutandis, Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 108, ECHR 2000-I), which remained reasonably foreseeable within the meaning of the Court's case-law (see Lekic v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, § 95, 11 December 2018; and, albeit in the context of Article 7 of the Convention, Previti v. Italy (dec.), no. 45291/06, § 283, 8 December 2009).
- EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80
AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 64863/13
The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see, among many authorities, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 48, Series A no. 108, and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 185, ECHR 2012). - EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 58045/11
S.C. SERVICE BENZ COM S.R.L. c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 64863/13
The Court therefore considers that the measure amounts, in the circumstances of the present case, to a deprivation of property (see B.K.M. Lojistik Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Slovenia, no. 42079/12, §§ 37-38, 17 January 2017 and S.C. Service Benz Com S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 58045/11, § 30, 4 July 2017). - EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02
YILDIRIM contre l'ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 64863/13
On the contrary, he could have proved his good faith, and that could have led to the restitution of his property (see, for instance and mutatis mutandis, Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, CEDH 2003-IV).
- EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 50705/11
TODOROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
In other cases the Court found similar measures to amount to deprivation of property within the meaning of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Andonoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 16225/08, § 30, 17 September 2015; S.C. Service Benz Com S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 58045/11, § 30, 4 July 2017; and Yasar v. Romania, no. 64863/13, § 49, 26 November 2019).