Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 24638/94 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CARBONARA ET VENTURA c. ITALIE
Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
Violation de P1-1 Satisfaction équitable réservée Exception préliminaire rejetée (victime) (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CARBONARA AND VENTURA v. ITALY
Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
Violation of P1-1 Just satisfaction reserved Preliminary objection dismissed (victim) (englisch) - juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 22.10.1997 - 24638/94
- EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 24638/94
- EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 24638/94
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
KRUSLIN c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 24638/94
Even if they were to accept the idea that the rule constituted a legal norm, the applicants, referring to the Kruslin v. France case (judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A), observed that it had to be accessible, its effects had to be foreseeable and it had to be compatible with the principle of the rule of law. - EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 24638/94
The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule" (see, among other authorities, the James and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, pp. 29-30, § 37, partly following the terms of the Court's analysis in the Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 24, § 61; see also the Holy Monasteries v. Greece judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-A, p. 31, § 56, and Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 55, ECHR 1999-II). - EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88
HENTRICH v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 24638/94
However, it reiterates that the requirement of lawfulness means that rules of domestic law must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable (see the Hentrich v. France judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, pp. 19-20, § 42, and the Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 47, § 110). - EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80
LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 24638/94
However, it reiterates that the requirement of lawfulness means that rules of domestic law must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable (see the Hentrich v. France judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, pp. 19-20, § 42, and the Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 47, § 110).
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 29.11.2018 - C-235/17
Kommission/ Ungarn (Usufruits sur terres agricoles)
151 Vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 30. Mai 2000, Carbonara und Ventura/Italien (CE:ECHR:2000:0530JUD002463894, § 67), sowie EGMR, 9. Oktober 2003, Biozokat A.E./Griechenland (CE:ECHR:2003:1009JUD006158200, § 29). - EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 18791/03
GROSSI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
Se référant aux arrêts Belvedere Alberghiera c. Italie (no 31524/96, 30 mai 2000, CEDH 2000-VI) et Carbonara et Ventura c. Italie (no 24638/94, 30 mai 2000, CEDH 2000-VI), ils observent que l'expropriation indirecte est un mécanisme qui permet à l'autorité publique d'acquérir un bien en toute illégalité, ce qui n'est pas admissible dans un Etat de droit.La Cour renvoie à sa jurisprudence en matière d'expropriation indirecte (Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l. c. Italie, no 31524/96, CEDH 2000-VI, et Carbonara et Ventura c. Italie, no 24638/94, CEDH 2000-VI ; parmi les arrêts plus récents, voir Acciardi et Campagna c. Italie, no 41040/98, 19 mai 2005, Pasculli c. Italie, no 36818/97, 17 mai 2005, Scordino c. Italie (no 3), no 43662/98, 17 mai 2005, Serrao c. Italie, no 67198/01, 13 octobre 2005, La Rosa et Alba c. Italie (no 1), no 58119/00, 11 octobre 2005, et Chirò c. Italie (no 4), no 67196/01, 11 octobre 2005), selon laquelle l'expropriation indirecte méconnaît le principe de légalité au motif qu'elle n'est pas apte à assurer un degré suffisant de sécurité juridique et qu'elle permet en général à l'administration de passer outre les règles fixées en matière d'expropriation.