Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HASANI v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 35 Abs. 4 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 20844/09

  The requisite "fair balance" will not be struck where the person concerned bears an individual and excessive burden (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69-74, Series A no. 52, and Brumarescu, cited above, § 78).
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 20844/09

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 54, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 24846/94

  ZIELINSKI ET PRADAL & GONZALEZ ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 20844/09

  The Court has already held that, in principle, the legislature is not precluded, in civil matters, from adopting new retrospective provisions to regulate rights arising under existing laws (see Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 57, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 75255/01

  GOUDSWAARD-VAN DER LANS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 20844/09

  The second and third rules, which are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, are to be construed in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX and Goudswaard-Van der Lans v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 75255/01, ECHR 2005-XI).

• EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 66529/11

  N.K.M. v. HUNGARY

  Furthermore, a legislative amendment which removes a legitimate expectation may amount in its own right to an interference with "possessions" (see, mutatis mutandis, Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, §§ 67-71 and 79, ECHR 2005-IX; Draon v. France [GC], no. 1513/03, §§ 70-72, 6 October 2005; and Hasani v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20844/09, 30 September 2010).
• EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 57665/12

  KOUFAKI ET ADEDY c. GRÈCE

  The Court considers that the restrictions introduced by the impugned legislation should not be considered as a "deprivation of possessions" as the applicants claim, but rather as interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions for the purposes of the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-IX; Wieczorek, cited above, § 61; and Valkov and Others, cited above, § 88; see also, mutatis mutandis, Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, §§ 67-71 and § 79, ECHR 2005-IX; Draon v. France [GC], no. 1513/03, §§ 70-72, 6 October 2005; and Hasani v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20844/09, 30 September 2010).
• EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 41838/11

  R.Sz. v. HUNGARY

  Furthermore, a legislative amendment which removes a legitimate expectation may amount in its own right to an interference with "possessions" (see, mutatis mutandis, Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, §§ 67-71 and 79, ECHR 2005-IX; Draon v. France [GC], no. 1513/03, §§ 70-72, 6 October 2005; and Hasani v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20844/09, 30 September 2010).

 
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 49570/11

  GÁLL v. HUNGARY

  Furthermore, a legislative amendment which removes a legitimate expectation may amount in its own right to an interference with "possessions" (see, mutatis mutandis, Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, §§ 67-71 and 79, ECHR 2005-IX; Draon v. France [GC], no. 1513/03, §§ 70-72, 6 October 2005; and Hasani v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20844/09, 30 September 2010).
• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  VALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  From this vantage point, it could be argued that, regardless of the position before or after, between 1 January 2000 and 23 December 2003 the applicants could be regarded as having harboured a legitimate expectation that the cap on their pensions would come to an end on 31 December 2003, and that the legislative amendment which took that expectation away amounted in its own right to an interference with their "possessions" (see, mutatis mutandis, Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, §§ 67-71 and 79, ECHR 2005-IX; Draon v. France [GC], no. 1513/03, §§ 70-72, 6 October 2005; and Hasani v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20844/09, 30 September 2010).
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 44232/11

  MIHAIES c. ROUMANIE

  Or même dans l'hypothèse où la Cour conclurait que les requérants étaient titulaires d'un bien susceptible d'être protégé par l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 et que la mesure litigieuse s'analysait en une ingérence dans ce droit (voir, mutatis mutandis, Hasani c. Croatie, 20844/09, (déc.) 30 septembre 2010), leurs requêtes auraient dû être déclarées irrecevables pour les motifs qui suivent.