Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VOLCHKOVA AND MIRONOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45668/05, 2292/06
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 45668/05
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 45668/05

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR - 28473/12 (anhängig)

  KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45668/05

  Indeed, the Court adopted a stringent test regarding challenges concerning a "public interest" in relation to deprivations of property arising from enactment of laws, in particular, in the context of profound societal changes (see James and Others, cited above, § 46; Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, §§ 87-88, ECHR 2000-XII; and Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos. 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01, § 91, ECHR 2005-VI) or general measures of economic or social strategy, for instance for the protection of the environment or of a country's historical or cultural heritage (see, as a recent authority, Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic [GC], nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12, § 179, 15 November 2016).
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 74568/12

  Russland verurteilt: 25.000 Euro wegen Festnahme nach Demo

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45668/05

  As regards the requirement of "exceptional circumstances" under the same provision, the Court was not provided with any material suggesting that it was considered or should have been considered at the time to be an essential element pertaining to the legality of an expropriation (see, mutatis mutandis, albeit in a different context, Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, § 150, ECHR 2016 (extracts), and Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, §§ 63-65, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45668/05

  First of all, having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and the scope of the Court's findings under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the expropriation decision, it is not necessary to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the complaints relating to issues of fairness in the expropriation proceedings (see, for the approach, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45668/05

  The Court reiterates that a deprivation of property effected for no other reason than to confer a private benefit on a private party cannot be "in the public interest" (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 40, Series A no. 98).

• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 5865/07

  BUTKEVICH v. RUSSIA

  45668/05 and 2292/06, § 106, 28 March 2017).
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 54381/08

  TSVETKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  45668/05 and 2292/06, § 106, 28 March 2017).