Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 11890/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,62353) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BIJELIC v. MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA
Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 11890/05
- EGMR, 14.09.2016 - 11890/05
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 77627/01
KULJANIN v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 11890/05
The Court, therefore, observes that on 23 October 1995 the first applicant had transferred ownership of the flat in question to the second and third applicants (see paragraph 23 above) and concludes that the first applicant's complaint in respect of Montenegro is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Kuljanin v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77627/01, 3 June 2004). - EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
BLECIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 11890/05
In the Court's view, although the Montenegrin Government have not raised an objection as to the Court's competence ratione personae in this respect, the first applicant's victim status nevertheless calls for its consideration (see, mutatis mutandis, Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-...). - EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
MARCKX v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 11890/05
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees, inter alia, the right of property, which includes the right to enjoy one's property peacefully, as well as the right to dispose of it (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 63, Series A no. 31). - EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80
GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 11890/05
In the case of Gillow v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109), the Court held that the applicants, who had owned but not lived in their house for nineteen years, could call it their "home" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.