Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DOKIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of P1-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - award Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 6518/04

  The respondent Government maintained that the legislation which declared the impugned purchase contract void had been enacted before the ratification of Protocol No. 1 by Bosnia and Herzegovina and invited the Court to declare the application incompatible ratione temporis in that regard (they made a reference to Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, ECHR 2006-III).

  It will therefore be used in this judgment instead of the term "specially protected tenancy" used by the Court in Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, ECHR 2006-III, and other cases against Croatia.

• VerfG Brandenburg, 10.03.2005 - VfGBbg 77/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 6518/04

  In support of their position, the respondent Government also referred to domestic jurisprudence which considered the applicant and all others who had served in foreign armed forces after the 1992-95 war to be disloyal to Bosnia and Herzegovina (the decision CH/98/874 et al. of the Human Rights Commission of 9 February 2005 mentioned in paragraph 38 above and a number of follow-up cases, as well as decision U 83/03 of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 22 September 2004).

  Neither the statistics provided by the respondent Government within the context of this case nor those to which the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina referred in its decision U 83/03 of 22 September 2004, § 21, are of any assistance.

• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 6518/04

  The Court has held in comparable situations that, as a matter of principle, no difference in treatment which is based exclusively or to a decisive extent on a person's ethnic origin is capable of being objectively justified in a contemporary democratic society (see Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 44, 22 December 2009; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 176, ECHR 2007-XII; and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 58, ECHR 2005-XII).

 
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 6518/04

  46113/99 et al., 1 March 2010, and contrast Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 46, Series A no. 109).
• EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 36548/97

  PINCOVÁ ET PINC c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 6518/04

  The Court agrees with the respondent Government that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee a right to full compensation in all circumstances, but neither of the amounts mentioned above is reasonably related to the market value of the impugned flat (see James and Others, cited above, § 54; Pincová and Pinc v. the Czech Republic, no. 36548/97, § 53, ECHR 2002-VIII; and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 95-97, ECHR 2006-V).
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00

  TIMISHEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 6518/04

  The Court has held in comparable situations that, as a matter of principle, no difference in treatment which is based exclusively or to a decisive extent on a person's ethnic origin is capable of being objectively justified in a contemporary democratic society (see Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 44, 22 December 2009; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 176, ECHR 2007-XII; and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 58, ECHR 2005-XII).
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 36357/04

  BERIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 6518/04

  36357/04 et al., ECHR 2007-XII).
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 6518/04

  The Court has held in comparable situations that, as a matter of principle, no difference in treatment which is based exclusively or to a decisive extent on a person's ethnic origin is capable of being objectively justified in a contemporary democratic society (see Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 44, 22 December 2009; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 176, ECHR 2007-XII; and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 58, ECHR 2005-XII).
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14556/89

  PAPAMICHALOPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 6518/04

  As to the merits of the case, the third-party Government argued that the applicant should be regarded as the owner of the flat in Sarajevo (despite the absence of registration of his title) and that the contested measures amounted to a de facto expropriation incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (they referred to, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 63, Series A no. 52; Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece, 24 June 1993, § 45, Series A no. 260-B; and Matos e Silva, Lda., and Others v. Portugal, 16 September 1996, § 92, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 6518/04

  As to the merits of the case, the third-party Government argued that the applicant should be regarded as the owner of the flat in Sarajevo (despite the absence of registration of his title) and that the contested measures amounted to a de facto expropriation incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (they referred to, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 63, Series A no. 52; Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece, 24 June 1993, § 45, Series A no. 260-B; and Matos e Silva, Lda., and Others v. Portugal, 16 September 1996, § 92, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 30.08.2007 - 44302/02

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

• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 28704/11

  APOSTOLOVSKI AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Mr Apostolovski bought his military flat shortly before the 1992-95 war (compare okic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 6518/04, 27 May 2010), whereas the other two applicants did not (compare Mago and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 12959/05 and 5 others, 3 May 2012).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 19887/21

  PRODANOVIC AND TODOROVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  They did not buy those flats but held an occupancy right on them (see Mago and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 12959/05 and 5 others, 3 May 2012; contrast okic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 6518/04, 27 May 2010).
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 29620/05

  SEREMET v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA

  Lastly, turning to the applicant's substantive complaint under Article 2 against Montenegro and Serbia, the Court has not overlooked the fact that there is much evidence of direct and indirect participation by the VJ forces in military operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina (see Ä�okic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 6518/04, §§ 15-17, 27 May 2010, and the authorities cited therein).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 9544/12

  JAKOVLJEVIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Some applicants bought their flats shortly before the 1992-95 war (compare okic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 6518/04, 27 May 2010), whereas the others did not (compare Mago and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 12959/05 and 5 others, 3 May 2012).