Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 73105/12 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2021,38013) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BERZINS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
BÄ'RZI?...S AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84
ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 73105/12
Consideration must be given, in particular, to whether the applicant, on acquiring the property, knew or should have reasonably known about the restrictions on the property or about possible future restrictions (see Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, §§ 60-61, Series A no. 163, and ?acz v. Poland (dec.), no. 22665/02, 23 June 2009), the existence of legitimate expectations with respect to the use of the property or acceptance of the risk on purchase (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 54, Series A no. 192), the extent to which the restriction prevented use of the property (see Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, 27 October 1994, § 46, Series A no. 293-B, and SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)), and the possibility of challenging the necessity of the restriction (see Phocas v. France, 23 April 1996, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, and Papastavrou and Others v. Greece, no. 46372/99, § 37, ECHR 2003-IV). - EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86
FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 73105/12
Consideration must be given, in particular, to whether the applicant, on acquiring the property, knew or should have reasonably known about the restrictions on the property or about possible future restrictions (see Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, §§ 60-61, Series A no. 163, and ?acz v. Poland (dec.), no. 22665/02, 23 June 2009), the existence of legitimate expectations with respect to the use of the property or acceptance of the risk on purchase (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 54, Series A no. 192), the extent to which the restriction prevented use of the property (see Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, 27 October 1994, § 46, Series A no. 293-B, and SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)), and the possibility of challenging the necessity of the restriction (see Phocas v. France, 23 April 1996, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, and Papastavrou and Others v. Greece, no. 46372/99, § 37, ECHR 2003-IV). - EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79
BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 73105/12
The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule" (see, among other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98, which reproduces in part the analysis given by the Court in Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52; the Holy Monasteries v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 56, Series A no. 301-A; and Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 55, ECHR 1999-II).
- EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 22665/02
LACZ v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 73105/12
Consideration must be given, in particular, to whether the applicant, on acquiring the property, knew or should have reasonably known about the restrictions on the property or about possible future restrictions (see Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, §§ 60-61, Series A no. 163, and ?acz v. Poland (dec.), no. 22665/02, 23 June 2009), the existence of legitimate expectations with respect to the use of the property or acceptance of the risk on purchase (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 54, Series A no. 192), the extent to which the restriction prevented use of the property (see Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, 27 October 1994, § 46, Series A no. 293-B, and SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)), and the possibility of challenging the necessity of the restriction (see Phocas v. France, 23 April 1996, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, and Papastavrou and Others v. Greece, no. 46372/99, § 37, ECHR 2003-IV). - EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 61093/00
SCEA FERME DE FRESNOY c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 73105/12
Consideration must be given, in particular, to whether the applicant, on acquiring the property, knew or should have reasonably known about the restrictions on the property or about possible future restrictions (see Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, §§ 60-61, Series A no. 163, and ?acz v. Poland (dec.), no. 22665/02, 23 June 2009), the existence of legitimate expectations with respect to the use of the property or acceptance of the risk on purchase (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 54, Series A no. 192), the extent to which the restriction prevented use of the property (see Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, 27 October 1994, § 46, Series A no. 293-B, and SCEA Ferme de Fresnoy v. France (dec.), no. 61093/00, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)), and the possibility of challenging the necessity of the restriction (see Phocas v. France, 23 April 1996, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, and Papastavrou and Others v. Greece, no. 46372/99, § 37, ECHR 2003-IV). - EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 73105/12
The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule" (see, among other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98, which reproduces in part the analysis given by the Court in Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52; the Holy Monasteries v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 56, Series A no. 301-A; and Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 55, ECHR 1999-II).
- EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 26488/18
JANKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA
All the above leads the Court to conclude that the correction of errors by the annulment of the applicant's title to the road in question has not created disproportionate new wrongs (compare and contrast Beinarovic and Others, cited above, § 145, and Berzi?†?. and Others v. Latvia, no. 73105/12, § 107, 21 September 2021). - EGMR, 13.06.2023 - 16757/21
AKTÜRK ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE
En effet, lorsqu'une question d'intérêt général est en jeu, les pouvoirs publics sont tenus de réagir en temps utile, de façon correcte et avec la plus grande cohérence conformément au principe de bonne gouvernance (Berzi?†?. et autres c. Lettonie, no 73105/12, § 90, 21 septembre 2021).