Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHUB v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 17064/06

  The hope that a long-extinguished property right may be revived cannot be considered a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition be so characterised (see Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 82-83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 17120/04

  BERGAUER AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 17064/06

  Nor can it be interpreted as creating any general obligation for the Contracting States to restore property which had been expropriated before they ratified the Convention, or as imposing any restrictions on their freedom to determine the scope and conditions of any property restitution to former owners (see Bergauer and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 17120/04, 4 May 2004; Jantner v. Slovakia, no. 39050/97, § 34, 4 March 2003; mutatis mutandis, Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 17064/06

  Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee the right to acquire property (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48).

 
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 17064/06

  Instead, the Court's function is to examine compliance with Article 6 in the light of the impugned proceedings as a whole (see, among many other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, p. 32, § 33, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, § 34).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 17064/06

  Instead, the Court's function is to examine compliance with Article 6 in the light of the impugned proceedings as a whole (see, among many other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, p. 32, § 33, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, § 34).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 17064/06

  "Possessions" can either be "existing possessions" or assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he or she has at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining the effective enjoyment of a property right (see, for example, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332, and Ouzounis and Others v. Greece, no. 49144/99, 18 April 2002, § 24).

• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 34865/07

  STICHTING VOOR EDUCATIE EN BEROEPSONDERWIJS ZADKINE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Instead, the Court's function is to examine compliance with Article 6 in the light of the impugned proceedings as a whole (see, mutatis mutandis, Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, p. 32, § 33, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, § 34; as a recent example of a case in which Article 6 applies under its civil head, see Shub v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 17064/06, 30 June 2009).