Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 07.10.2021 - 1631/16 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2021,40340) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LYSAK v. POLAND
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Pecuniary damage - reserved (Article 41 - Pecuniary ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
LYSAK v. POLAND
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (4) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80
AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99
Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2021 - 1631/16
46113/99 and 7 others, § 70, ECHR 2010, with further references). - EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2021 - 1631/16
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 Hábenczius, cited above, § 29). - EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87
RAIMONDO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2021 - 1631/16
A seizure of property for legal proceedings normally relates to the control of the use of property, which falls within the ambit of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no. 281-A; Patrikova v. Bulgaria, no. 71835/01, § 81, 4 March 2010; JGK Statyba Ltd and Guselnikovas v. Lithuania, no. 3330/12, § 117, 5 November 2013; Hábenczius, cited above, § 28; D?¾inic v. Croatia, no. 38359/13, § 62, 17 May 2016; Lachikhina v. Russia, no. 38783/07, § 58, 10 October 2017; and Adamczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 28551/04, 7 November 2006; contrast Waldemar Nowakowski v. Poland, no. 55167/11, § 46, 24 July 2012). - EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
Budweiser-Streit
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2021 - 1631/16
v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 62, ECHR 2007-I; AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 48, Series A no. 108; and Hábenczius v. Hungary, no. 44473/06, § 27, 21 October 2014).
- VG Greifswald, 01.02.2017 - 3 A 346/16
Asylrecht: Zuerkennung der Flüchtlingseigenschaft eines afghanischen …
Dieser Rechtsprechung hat sich das Gericht angeschlossen (s.a. VG Greifswald, Urt. v. 26.01.2017 - 3 A 1631/16 As):. - EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 22716/12
ANDRZEJ RUCI?ƒSKI v. POLAND
The seizure of property in the context of legal proceedings normally relates to control of the use of property, which falls within the ambit of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many other authorities, Lysak v. Poland, no. 1631/16, § 76, 7 October 2021). - EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 72099/10
ERTASAY MADENCILIK c. TÜRKIYE
Les principes généraux concernant les saisies de biens et leur conformité à l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention ont été exposés notamment dans l'affaire ?ysak c. Pologne (no 1631/16, §§ 75-78, 7 octobre 2021). - EGMR - 16865/22 (anhängig)
DURAN MARITIME CORP. v. TÜRKIYE
Did the seizure of the applicant company's vessel violate its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, did that seizure impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company considering its length (see Lysak v. Poland, no. 1631/16, §§ 75-92, 7 October 2021; JGK Statyba Ltd and Guselnikovas v. Lithuania, no. 3330/12, §§ 127-133, 5 November 2013; and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Turkey, no. 40998/98, §§ 94 to 103, ECHR 2007-V)? Furthermore, did the refusal to award compensation for the loss of value suffered by the vessel due to the lack of maintenance during the seizure upset the balance between the interests of the community and those of the applicant (Tendam v. Spain, no. 25720/05, §§ 49 to 55, 13 July 2010)?.