Rechtsprechung
| EGMR - 47841/20 |
Anhängiges Verfahren
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
DE JESUS AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- OVG Brandenburg, 21.11.1995 - A 91/95
Auszug aus EGMR - 47841/20
The applications concern enforcement proceedings brought against the applicants after they failed to pay their share of costs for the urbanisation of the AUGI so that the land could be converted into urban land, in accordance with the conditions provided for in Law no. 91/95 of 2 September 1995, which established the exceptional legal regime for the regularisation of AUGIs at domestic level.- the enforceable title, which was the basis of the enforcement proceedings lodged by the AUGI Commission against them, was not in accordance with Law no. 91/95;.
- Law no. 91/95 was not sufficiently precise and foreseeable in terms of division of the land and the costs of the conversion between the co-owners, failing to strike a fair balance between the public interest inherent in the conversion and their right to protection of their property rights;.
- EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02
Depalle ./. Frankreich - Brosset Triboulet u. a. ./. Frankreich
Auszug aus EGMR - 47841/20
Should the answer to the above questions be in the affirmative, has there been a violation of the applicants' peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, was the interference in accordance with the law and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions (see G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, §§ 292-293, 28 June 2018; Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, §§ 83-84, ECHR 2010; and Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, § 73, 21 April 2016)?. - EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15
IVANOVA AND CHERKEZOV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR - 47841/20
Should the answer to the above questions be in the affirmative, has there been a violation of the applicants' peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, was the interference in accordance with the law and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions (see G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, §§ 292-293, 28 June 2018; Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, §§ 83-84, ECHR 2010; and Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, § 73, 21 April 2016)?.