Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SPADEA ET SCALABRINO c. ITALIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Non-violation de P1-1 Non-violation de l'art. 14+P1-1 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SPADEA AND SCALABRINO v. ITALY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of P1-1 No violation of Art. 14+P1-1 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 05.04.1993 - 12868/87
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

Wird zitiert von ... (50)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 26.11.1992 - 13867/88

  BRINCAT v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

  In the Court's view, however, the latter complaint is outside the scope of the case as defined by the Commission's decision on admissibility (see, among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, the Brincat v. Italy judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, p. 10, para. 16).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10522/83

  Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

  They must therefore be construed in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see, among other authorities, the Mellacher and Others v. Austria judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169, pp. 24-25, para. 42).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10964/84

  BROZICEK v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

  Accordingly, such an application cannot be a remedy whose exhaustion is required under Article 26 (art. 26) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, the Brozicek v. Italy judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 167, p. 17, para. 34, and the Padovani v. Italy judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 19, para. 20).

 
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

  For a claim of violation of this Article (art. 14) to succeed, it has therefore to be established, inter alia, that the situation of the alleged victim can be considered similar to that of persons who have been better treated (see the Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1) judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192, p. 19, para.
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

  Consequently, an interference must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see, among other authorities, the Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 26, para. 69).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

  Accordingly, such an application cannot be a remedy whose exhaustion is required under Article 26 (art. 26) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, the Brozicek v. Italy judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 167, p. 17, para. 34, and the Padovani v. Italy judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 19, para. 20).

• EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06

  Konstantin Markin ./. Russland

  The Court has even been prepared to assess public policies on housing from the perspective of their impact on the rights of owners (James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 46, Series A no. 98; Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 45, Series A no. 169; Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy, 28 September 1995, § 29, Series A no. 315-B; and Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, §§ 224-225, 239, ECHR 2006-VIII).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Un tel moyen était donc dépourvu de toute chance de succès (arrêt Spadea et Scalabrino c. Italie du 28 septembre 1995, série A n° 315-B, p. 24, § 24 in fine).
• EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 35349/05

  FLERI SOLER ET CAMILLERI c. MALTE

  Sur ce dernier point, elle renvoya à l'affaire Spadea et Scalabrino c. Italie (28 septembre 1995, série A no 315-B).

  Dans chaque affaire portant sur une allégation de violation de cet article, la Cour doit donc vérifier si l'ingérence de l'Etat a fait peser sur la personne concernée une charge disproportionnée et excessive (James et autres, précité, § 50 ; Mellacher et autres, précité, § 48 ; et Spadea et Scalabrino c. Italie, 28 septembre 1995, § 33, série A no 315-B).

 
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  FÁBIÁN c. HONGRIE

  See, for example, Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy, 28 September 1995, §§ 45-47, Series A no. 315-B; Chassagnou v. France [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 19.06.2006 - 35014/97

  HUTTEN-CZAPSKA c. POLOGNE

  In each case involving an alleged violation of that Article the Court must therefore ascertain whether by reason of the State's interference the person concerned had to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden (see James and Others, cited above, § 50; Mellacher and Others, cited above, § 48; and Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy, 28 September 1995, § 33, Series A no. 315-B).
• EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 77568/01

  PETKOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  250-279 ; Brozicek c. Italie, 19 décembre 1989, § 34, série A no 167 ; Padovani c. Italie, 26 février 1993, § 20, série A no 257-B ; Spadea et Scalabrino c. Italie, 28 septembre 1995, § 24, série A no 315-B ; Immobiliare Saffi c. Italie [GC], no 22774/93, § 42 in fine, CEDH 1999-V ; Moya Alvarez c. Espagne (déc.), no 44677/98, CEDH 1999-VIII ; et Ždanoka c. Lettonie (déc.), no 58278/00, 6 mars 2003).
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 14717/04

  BERGER-KRALL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  They included legislation entailing rent reductions (see Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 57, Series A no. 169), a temporary suspension of the eviction of some categories of tenants (see Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy, 28 September 1995, § 41, Series A no. 315-B) and different restrictions on the landlord's right to terminate the lease (see Velosa Barreto, cited above, §§ 26 and 29-30, where this right was conditional on the landlord needing the premises for his or her own accommodation; Almeida Ferreira and Melo Ferreira, cited above, §§ 32-36, where the lease could not be terminated if the tenant had occupied the premises for 20 or more years; see also Crux Bixirão v. Portugal, no. 24098/94, Commission's decision of 28 February 1996, unpublished, where the Commission found that the impossibility of terminating a rent contract when the tenant was 65 years old or older was not incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06

  AMATO GAUCI v. MALTA

  In each case involving an alleged violation of that Article the Court must therefore ascertain whether by reason of the State's interference the person concerned had to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden (see James and Others, cited above, § 50; Mellacher and Others, cited above, § 48, and Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy, judgment of 28 September 1995, § 33, Series A no. 315-B).
• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  VALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The Court has, in line with its earlier case-law on that point (see Brozicek v. Italy, 19 December 1989, § 34, Series A no. 167; Padovani v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 20, Series A no. 257-B; Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy, 28 September 1995, § 24, Series A no. 315-B; and Immobiliare Saffi, cited above, § 42 in fine), already held that the possibility to request the bodies or the officials entitled to bring such proceedings to do so is not an effective remedy for the purposes of Articles 13 or 35 § 1 of the Convention, because the persons concerned cannot directly compel the institution of proceedings before the Constitutional Court, whereas under this Court's settled case-law a remedy can be considered effective only if the applicant is able to initiate the procedure directly (see Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, § 82, ECHR 2009-..., with further references).
• EGMR, 08.01.2007 - 55809/00

  Menschenrechte: Überlange Verfahrensdauer des Verfahrens vor dem …

  Darüber hinaus muss der Gerichtshof in jeder Rechtssache, in der eine Verletzung dieses Artikels geltend gemacht wird, prüfen, ob der Beschwerdeführer aufgrund des staatlichen Eingriffs eine unverhältnismäßige und übermäßige Last zu tragen hatte (siehe James u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich , Urteil vom 21. Februar 1986, Serie A Band 98, S. 27, Nr. 50; Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich , Urteil vom 19. Dezember 1989, Serie A Band 169, S. 34, Nr. 48, Spadea und Scalabrino ./. Italien , Urteil vom 28. September 1995, Serie A Band 315-B, S. 26, Nr. 33.
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 36889/18

  CAMELIA BOGDAN c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 2699/03

  FONDATION FOYERS DES ÉLÈVES DE L'ÉGLISE RÉFORMÉE ET STANOMIRESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 13221/08

  LINDHEIM AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 35014/97

  HUTTEN-CZAPSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 13424/06

  N.A. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 12027/10

  STATILEO v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 58278/00

  ZDANOKA contre la LETTONIE
• EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 3330/12

  JGK STATYBA LTD AND GUSELNIKOVAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 17647/04

  EDWARDS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 3851/12

  ANTHONY AQUILINA v. MALTA
• EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 10108/02

  TETU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 18.12.2003 - 42098/98

  PEZONE c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 41696/07

  ALMEIDA FERREIRA ET MELO FERREIRA c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 34026/03

  ÇELIKKAYA c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 7801/03

  GAUCHIN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 31122/05

  GHIGO v. MALTA
• EGMR, 02.09.2003 - 52237/99

  EISENBERG contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 21.01.2003 - 21322/02

  TSAGGARIS v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 15.11.2002 - 33204/96

  TOSI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 15.11.2002 - 31223/96

  T.C.U. v. ITALY
• EGMR, 15.11.2002 - 32392/96

  L. AND P. v. ITALY
• EGMR, 15.11.2002 - 31129/96

  MERICO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 15.11.2002 - 32577/96

  FOLLI CARE v. ITALY
• EGMR, 29.11.2001 - 52464/99

  PAPADOPOULOS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 30.11.2000 - 15919/89

  EDOARDO PALUMBO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 22534/93

  A.O. v. ITALY
• EGMR, 25.05.1999 - 29021/95

  J.K. v. SLOVAKIA
• EKMR, 01.07.1998 - 35268/97

  SVIDRANOVA v. THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC
• EKMR, 17.01.1997 - 22671/93

  G.L. v. ITALY
• EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 27126/11

  NOBEL AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 52273/08

  POULAIN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 68880/01

  SCHIRMER v. POLAND
• EGMR, 27.11.2001 - 49278/99

  ENTREPRISE CHAGNAUD contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 26760/95

  WERNER v. POLAND
• EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 49213/99

  XENODOCHIAKI S.A. v. GREECE
• EGMR, 01.02.2001 - 37895/97

  KURAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 16.11.2000 - 35014/97

  HUTTEN-CZAPSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 25.05.1999 - 37884/97

  BONDA v. SLOVAKIA
• EKMR, 16.10.1996 - 32009/96

  REUTER v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 19133/91

  SCOLLO v. ITALY