Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BIKIC v. CROATIA

  No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BIKIC v. CROATIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 50101/12

  As regards the Government's argument that the applicant in her constitutional complaints had not relied on the provision of the Constitution guaranteeing the right of ownership or on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court reiterates that in order to comply with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention it is not necessary for the Convention right to be explicitly raised at the domestic level (Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 117, ECHR 2018).

  First, the way in which majority has approached the general principles pertaining to the protection of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as presented in two recent Grand Chamber cases, namely Radomilja v. Croatia [GC], no. 37685/10 22768/12, 20 March 2018, and Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, 13 December 2016.

• EGMR, 30.07.2015 - 1046/12

  ZAMMIT AND ATTARD CASSAR v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 50101/12

  After carrying out an overall examination of the various interests in issue (see Perdigão v. Portugal [GC], no. 24768/06, § 68, 16 November 2010), bearing in mind that the Convention is intended to safeguard rights that are "practical and effective" (see, for example, Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 100, ECHR 1999-III); looking behind appearances and investigating the realities of the situation complained of (see Broniowski, cited above, § 151; Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, § 168, ECHR 2006-VIII; and Zammit and Attard Cassar v. Malta, no. 1046/12, § 57, 30 July 2015) and assessing the nature of the interference, the conduct of the applicant and that of the State authorities (see Perdigão, cited above, § 68) in our view the situation created by the national authorities frustrated the applicant's legitimate expectation of being able to purchase the socially owned apartment in which she had been living for thirty years, and placed an excessive individual burden on her.
• EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 36548/97

  PINCOVÁ ET PINC c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 50101/12

  Firstly, in the present case there is no conflict between the various private interests, since the flat which the applicant occupies was socially owned when she moved into it, and is now managed and apparently owned by the Zagreb Municipality (compare and contrast, for example, Pincová and Pinc v. the Czech Republic, no. 36548/97, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.

 
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 50101/12

  After carrying out an overall examination of the various interests in issue (see Perdigão v. Portugal [GC], no. 24768/06, § 68, 16 November 2010), bearing in mind that the Convention is intended to safeguard rights that are "practical and effective" (see, for example, Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 100, ECHR 1999-III); looking behind appearances and investigating the realities of the situation complained of (see Broniowski, cited above, § 151; Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, § 168, ECHR 2006-VIII; and Zammit and Attard Cassar v. Malta, no. 1046/12, § 57, 30 July 2015) and assessing the nature of the interference, the conduct of the applicant and that of the State authorities (see Perdigão, cited above, § 68) in our view the situation created by the national authorities frustrated the applicant's legitimate expectation of being able to purchase the socially owned apartment in which she had been living for thirty years, and placed an excessive individual burden on her.
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  DRAGOJEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 50101/12

  The applicant thereby provided the national authorities with the opportunity which is in principle intended to be afforded to Contracting States by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, namely of putting right the violations alleged against them (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 144-46, ECHR 2010; Karapanagiotou and Others v. Greece, no. 1571/08, § 29, 28 October 2010; and Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, § 73, 15 January 2015).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  MADER v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 50101/12

  Thus, the Court considers that the applicant, having raised the issue in substance in his constitutional complaint, did raise before the domestic courts the complaint which she has submitted to the Court (see, by contrast, MaÄ‘er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 137, 21 June 2011, and Merot d.o.o. and Storitve Tir d.o.o. v. Croatia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 03.03.2009 - 37639/03

  BOZCAADA KIMISIS TEODOKU RUM ORTODOKS KILISESI VAKFI c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 50101/12

  We believe therefore that it is important in the present case to examine whether the circumstances of the case, considered as a whole, conferred on the applicant title to a substantive interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Rum Ortodoks Kilisesi Vakfi v. Turkey, nos. 37639/03, 37655/03, 26736/04 and 42670/04, § 41, 3 March 2009; Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 62, ECHR 2010, § 62; Plalam S.P.A. v. Italy (merits), no. 16021/02, § 37, 18 May 2010; and Di Marco v. Italy, no. 32521/05, § 50, 26 April 2011).
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08

  MEROT D.O.O. AND STORITVE TIR D.O.O. v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 50101/12

  29426/08 and 29737/08, §§ 35 and 36, 10 December 2013).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 32521/05

  DI MARCO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 50101/12

  We believe therefore that it is important in the present case to examine whether the circumstances of the case, considered as a whole, conferred on the applicant title to a substantive interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Rum Ortodoks Kilisesi Vakfi v. Turkey, nos. 37639/03, 37655/03, 26736/04 and 42670/04, § 41, 3 March 2009; Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 62, ECHR 2010, § 62; Plalam S.P.A. v. Italy (merits), no. 16021/02, § 37, 18 May 2010; and Di Marco v. Italy, no. 32521/05, § 50, 26 April 2011).

• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 19620/05

  UZAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Récemment, la Cour a rappelé qu" « une espérance légitime n'a pas d'existence indépendante'et qu" « elle doit être rattachée à un intérêt patrimonial pour lequel il existe une base juridique suffisante en droit national'(Radomilja et autres, précité, § 143 ; voir également Bikic c. Croatie, no 50101/12, § 46, 29 mai 2018, Arzhiyeva et Tsadayev c. Russie, nos 66590/10 et 3773/11, § 43, 13 novembre 2018, et Basa c. Turquie, nos 18740/05 et 19507/05, § 82, 15 janvier 2019, non encore définitif).
• EGMR, 21.04.2020 - 36093/13

  ANZELIKA SIMAITIENE v. LITHUANIA

  37685/10 and 22768/12, § 149, 20 March 2018; Bikic v. Croatia, no. 50101/12, §§ 49-56, 29 May 2018; and Basa v. Turkey, nos.