Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MULLAI ET AUTRES CONTRE L'ALBANIE

  Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MULLAI AND OTHERS AGAINST ALBANIA

  Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 9074/07
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9074/07
• EGMR, 27.04.2016 - 9074/07

Wird zitiert von ... (8)

• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 44789/07

  REXHEPI SH.P.K. v. ALBANIA

  The Court finds that the planning permit coupled with the subsequently issued building permit constituted "possessions" for the applicant company (see Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, §§ 98-99, 23 March 2010).
• EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 77668/14

  IMERI v. CROATIA

  When speaking of "law", Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alludes to a concept which comprises statutory law as well as case-law and implies qualitative requirements, notably those of accessibility and foreseeability (see, for example, Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, § 60, 29 March 2011, with further references to Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, § 113, 23 March 2010; Spacek, s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic, no. 26449/95, § 54, 9 November 1999; and Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, no. 24638/94, § 64, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 37462/09

  ZAJA v. CROATIA

  This principle was initially enunciated in the context of complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the purposes of establishing whether an interference with the right of property was foreseeable and thus "provided for by law" within the meaning of that Article (see Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 31524/96, § 58, ECHR 2000-VI; Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, no. 24638/94, § 65, ECHR 2000-VI; Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, §§ 115-117, 23 March 2010; Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 18768/05, §§ 116-118, 27 May 2010; Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, § 67, 29 March 2011; and Matic and Polonia d.o.o. v. Serbia (dec.), no. 23001/08, § 47, 23 June 2015).

 
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05

  KOWALCZYK v. POLAND

  The Court has already held, in the context of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the Contracting States have an obligation to organise their legal system so as to avoid the adoption of discordant judgments (see Vrioni and Others v. Albania, no. 2141/03, § 58, 24 March 2009, and Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, § 86, 23 March 2010) and that conflicting decisions in similar cases stemming from the same court which, in addition, is the court of last resort in the matter, may, in the absence of a mechanism which ensures consistency, breach the principle of legal certainty inherent in that Article (see, for example, Beian v. Romania (no. 1), no. 30658/05, §§ 36-39, ECHR 2007-XIII; Tudor Tudor v. Romania, no. 21911/03, § 29, 24 March 2009; and Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 23530/02, §§ 47-53, 2 July 2009).
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 23001/08

  MATIC AND POLONIA DOO v. SERBIA

  Where manifestly divergent case-law, concerning the same issue, interferes with the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions and no reasonable explanation is given for this divergence, such interferences cannot be considered lawful for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Inconsistent case-law had been deemed to lack the required precision to enable individuals to foresee the consequences of their actions (see, among other authorities, Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, § 67, 29 March 2011; Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, no. 24638/94, § 65, ECHR 2000-VI; Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, §§ 115-117, 23 March 2010; and Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 18768/05, §§ 116-118, 27 May 2010).
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 13488/07

  BREZOVEC v. CROATIA

  When speaking of "law", Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alludes to a concept which comprises statutory law as well as case-law and implies qualitative requirements, notably those of accessibility and foreseeability (see, for example, Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, § 113, 23 March 2010; Spacek, s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic, no. 26449/95, § 54, 9 November 1999; and Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, no. 24638/94, § 64, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 28.01.2021 - 43326/13

  GROZDANIC AND GRSKOVIC-GROZDANIC v. CROATIA

  When speaking of "law", Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alludes to a concept which comprises statutory law as well as case-law and implies qualitative requirements, notably those of accessibility and foreseeability (see, for example, Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, § 60, 29 March 2011, with further references to Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, § 113, 23 March 2010; ? pacek, s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic, no. 26449/95, § 54, 9 November 1999; and Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, no. 24638/94, § 64, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 10.10.2019 - 7834/12

  LOPAC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  When speaking of "law", Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alludes to a concept which comprises statutory law as well as case-law and implies qualitative requirements, notably those of accessibility and foreseeability (see, for example, Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, § 60, 29 March 2011 with further references to Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, § 113, 23 March 2010; and Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, no. 24638/94, § 64, ECHR 2000-VI).