Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TRIMEG LIMITED v. MALTA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 64792/10

  However, the three rules are not "distinct" in the sense of being unconnected: 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, inter alia, Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, § 54, Series A no. 159, and Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 51, Series A no. 192).

  Having regard to the foregoing, particularly, the risk taken by the applicant company when it bought the land, the Court considers that the interference cannot be said to have been disproportionate (see, inter alia, Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 53, Series A no. 192, and Olbertz v. Germany (dec.), no. 37592/97, ECHR 1999-V).

• EGMR, 25.05.1999 - 37592/97

  Rechtmäßigkeit der Rücknahme der Bestellung zum Steuerberater; Voraussetzungen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 64792/10

  Having regard to the foregoing, particularly, the risk taken by the applicant company when it bought the land, the Court considers that the interference cannot be said to have been disproportionate (see, inter alia, Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 53, Series A no. 192, and Olbertz v. Germany (dec.), no. 37592/97, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84

  TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 64792/10

  However, the three rules are not "distinct" in the sense of being unconnected: 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, inter alia, Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, § 54, Series A no. 159, and Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 51, Series A no. 192).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 64792/10

  From that sentence, the Court has derived the requirement that an interference must strike a "fair balance" between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the individual's fundamental rights (see, inter alia, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 69, Series A no. 52).

• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 22008/20

  MARIA AZZOPARDI v. MALTA

  Further, as noted by the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 21 above) the fact that, before it was expropriated, no specific type of development had yet been determined for the land, did not entail any assurance as to its development (see also, mutatis mutandis, Trimeg v. Malta (dec.), no. 64792/10, § 28, 27 September 2011).