Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TARNOWSKI v. POLAND (No. 1)

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 59857/00

  BENNICH-ZALEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 33915/03

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Zwierzynski v. Poland, no. 34049/96, § 63-74, ECHR 2001-VI, and Bennich-Zalewski v. Poland, no. 59857/00, judgment of 22 April 2008.

  Under the provisions of Polish law such a decision should be regarded as conferring on the applicants a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Bennich-Zalewski v. Poland, no. 59857/00, judgment of 22 April 2008, § 90).

• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 3417/02

  LUPACESCU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 33915/03

  3417/02, 5994/02, 28365/02, 5742/03, 8693/03, 31976/03, 13681/03, and 32759/03, 21 March 2006).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 33915/03

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

 
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 33915/03

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, is set out in the Court's decisions in the cases of Charzynski v. Poland no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V, and Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII, and the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 33915/03

  As regards the right guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, such positive obligations may entail certain measures necessary to protect the right to property (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, p. 55, § 55), even in cases involving litigation between private individuals or companies (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 83, ECHR 2007-..., Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 96, ECHR 2002-VII, and Bennich-Zalewski v. Poland, cited above, § 92).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 33915/03

  In such circumstances, the State cannot simply remain passive and "there is... no room to distinguish between acts and omissions" (see, mutatis mutandis, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 14, § 25).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 33915/03

  As regards the right guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, such positive obligations may entail certain measures necessary to protect the right to property (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, p. 55, § 55), even in cases involving litigation between private individuals or companies (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 83, ECHR 2007-..., Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 96, ECHR 2002-VII, and Bennich-Zalewski v. Poland, cited above, § 92).

• EGMR, 27.09.2012 - 7398/07

  CHADZITASKOS AND FRANTA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The Court observes, however, that usually in cases where it found no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on this ground the applicants had access to judicial procedures (see, for example, Sedelmayer v. Germany (dec.), no. 30190/06, 10 November 2009; Tarnowski v. Poland (no. 1), no. 33915/03, § 85-86, 29 September 2009; and MPP Petrol v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 62605/00, § 140, 25 March 2008).