Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MINDEK v. CROATIA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MINDEK v. CROATIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13
• EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 6169/13
• EGMR, 23.10.2019 - 6169/13

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EKMR, 08.09.1988 - 13021/87

  RUIZ MATEOS v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13

  The Court notes at the outset that... civil-law dispute[s] between private parties... do not themselves engage the responsibility of the State under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ruiz Mateos v. the United Kingdom, no. 13021/87, Commission decision of 8 September 1988, Decisions and Reports (DR) 57, pp.
• EGMR, 03.02.2004 - 7274/02

  ESKELINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13

  268 and 275; Skowronski v. Poland (dec.), no. 52595/99, 28 June 2001; Kranz v. Poland (dec.), no. 6214/02, 10 September 2002; Eskelinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 7274/02, 3 February 2004; and Tormala v. Finland (dec.), no. 41258/98, 16 March 2004).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  Verletzung der Unschuldsvermutung eines Verstorbenen durch gerichtliche …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13

  The State may be held responsible for losses caused by such determinations if court decisions are not given in accordance with domestic law or if they are flawed by arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 44, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 16.03.2004 - 41258/98

  TORMALA and OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13

  268 and 275; Skowronski v. Poland (dec.), no. 52595/99, 28 June 2001; Kranz v. Poland (dec.), no. 6214/02, 10 September 2002; Eskelinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 7274/02, 3 February 2004; and Tormala v. Finland (dec.), no. 41258/98, 16 March 2004).

• EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 35635/14

  MALAYEVY v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, the Court's task in the present case is to assess whether the domestic courts" adjudication of the dispute between V.F. and the first applicant was given in accordance with domestic law and to ascertain that their relevant decisions were not arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (compare, Mindek v. Croatia, no. 6169/13, § 78, 30 August 2016).