Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANTONOV v. BULGARIA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ANTONOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 58364/10

  Article 13 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 66. Having regard to its finding in paragraphs 61 to 63 and its conclusion in paragraph 65 above, the Court considers that no separate issue arises concerning the alleged breaches of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No.1 (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 154, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 10162/02

  EKO-ELDA AVEE c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 58364/10

  The Court thus finds that, on the basis of the two final court judgments in his favour and the relevant statutory provisions, the applicant had a legitimate expectation and hence a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, consisting of the right to be refunded unduly paid taxes (see Buffalo S.r.l. in liquidation v. Italy, no. 38746/97, §§ 28-29, 3 July 2003, and Eko-Elda AVEE v. Greece, no. 10162/02, § 27, ECHR 2006-IV).
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 58364/10

  With regard to the applicant's claim for pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the costs incurred by the applicant in the domestic proceedings fall rather to be examined under the head of costs and expenses below (see, among many authorities, Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 69, ECHR 2002-II).

 
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 58364/10

  The Court reiterates that a debt can be a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 59, Series A no. 301-B, and Burdov, cited above, § 40).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

  Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 58364/10

  A failure on the applicant's part to bring to the Court's attention important developments taking place during the proceedings may also constitute such abuse (see S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 67, 1 July 2014, and Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 58364/10

  A decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him or her of "victim" status unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, §§ 69 et seq., Series A no. 51; Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; and Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X).

• EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 10783/14

  HANDZHIYSKI v. BULGARIA

  For their part, the administrative costs (in this case, postage and office supplies - items (b) and (c) of the applicant's claim) incurred by the applicant's representatives in connection with the proceedings before the Court are in principle recoverable under Article 41 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (Article 50), 6 November 1980, § 40, Series A no. 38; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (Article 50), 24 February 1983, § 25, Series A no. 59; Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, §§ 85-87, ECHR 2000-III; Ipek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, § 242 in fine, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); and Antonov v. Bulgaria, no. 58364/10, §§ 72 and 76, 28 May 2020).
• EGMR - 25466/20 (anhängig)

  BURG OIL AD v. BULGARIA

  If so, was that interference in the public interest and did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see, Intersplav v. Ukraine, no. 803/02, §§ 38-40, 9 January 2007 and Antonov v. Bulgaria, no. 58364/10, §§ 56-65, 28 May 2020)?.
• EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 31650/15

  ANTONUCCI c. ITALIE

  La Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence selon laquelle l'obligation financière née du prélèvement d'impôts ou de cotisations peut méconnaître la garantie consacrée par l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 si les conditions de remboursement imposent à la personne ou à l'entité en cause une charge excessive ou portent fondamentalement atteinte à sa situation financière (voir, Antonov c. Bulgarie, no 58364/10, §§ 58-59, 28 mai 2020, avec les références à Buffalo S.r.l. en liquidation c. Italie, no 38746/97, § 32, 3 juillet 2003, et Eko-Elda AVEE c. Grèce, no 10162/02, § 30, CEDH 2006-IV).