Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAGHINADZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-3 No violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 8 Violation of P1-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 18768/05
• EGMR, 04.05.2016 - 18768/05

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 18.01.2001 - 27238/95

  CHAPMAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  The Government denied that there had been any violation of this provision, on the same grounds as those advanced in connection with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Referring to the Court's judgment in the case of Chapman v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 27238/95, § 99, ECHR 2001-I), they also added that Article 8 of the Convention did not guarantee the right to be provided with a home.
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  It should be pointed out that, when rights under the Convention or its Protocols are at stake, the Court is not bound by the findings of the domestic courts and may depart from them or set them aside where this is rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, among many other authorities, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II; Bruncrona v. Finland, no. 41673/98, § 75, 16 November 2004; J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, § 75, ECHR 2007-X; Khamidov, cited above, § 135; Matyar v. Turkey, no. 23423/94, § 108, 21 February 2002).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

  Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  The concept of "possessions" is not limited to "existing possessions" but may also cover assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he or she has at least a reasonable and "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right (see, for instance, Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  It should be reiterated, in that connection, that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention has to operate with a degree of deference to domestic formalities, in particular when, as in the case at hand, considerations of legal certainty are at stake (see, for example, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 53, ECHR 2000-VII, and Agbovi v. Germany (dec.), no. 71759/01, 25 September 2006).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  As to the Government's argument that the domestic courts confirmed ex post facto the first applicant's dispossession and eviction, the Court reiterates, in the light of its findings above, that such adversarial proceedings, in order for them to represent an effective procedural safeguard against arbitrariness, should have, according to the domestic law, preceded the interference in question (see, mutatis mutandis, Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, §§ 41, 42, 45 and 46, Series A no. 296-A).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  However, Article 5 § 4 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as requiring that a judicial review of detention be attended by exactly the same degree of protection as is required by Article 6 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation (see, for instance, Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 125, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 30.08.2007 - 44302/02

  J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LTD ET J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LAND LTD c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  It should be pointed out that, when rights under the Convention or its Protocols are at stake, the Court is not bound by the findings of the domestic courts and may depart from them or set them aside where this is rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, among many other authorities, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II; Bruncrona v. Finland, no. 41673/98, § 75, 16 November 2004; J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, § 75, ECHR 2007-X; Khamidov, cited above, § 135; Matyar v. Turkey, no. 23423/94, § 108, 21 February 2002).
• EGMR, 25.09.2006 - 71759/01

  D. K. A. gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  It should be reiterated, in that connection, that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention has to operate with a degree of deference to domestic formalities, in particular when, as in the case at hand, considerations of legal certainty are at stake (see, for example, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 53, ECHR 2000-VII, and Agbovi v. Germany (dec.), no. 71759/01, 25 September 2006).
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 21911/03

  TUDOR TUDOR v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  44698/06, 44700/06, etc., § 56, 1 December 2009; Tudor Tudor v. Romania, no. 21911/03, § 29, 24 March 2009).
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 38736/04

  FC MRETEBI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  The respondent State is expected to make all feasible reparation for the consequences of the violation in such a manner as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see, amongst others, Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, § 71, ECHR 2006-...; FC Mretebi v. Georgia, no. 38736/04, § 61, 31 July 2007; and Assanidze, cited above, § 198).
• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 62543/00

  GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 72118/01

  KHAMIDOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 56547/00

  P., C. ET S. c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27693/95

  CELIKBILEK v. TURKEY