Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BANER c. SUEDE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 17, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BANER v. SWEDEN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 17, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.03.1989 - 11763/85

  For this reason the Commission must also examine "whether a reasonable relationship of proportionality existed between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised", or in other words, "whether a fair balance was struck between the demands of the general interest in this respect and the interest of the individual or individuals concerned" (Eur. Court H.R., Agosi judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, p. 18, para. 52 and Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment, loc. cit., p. 26, para. 69).
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.03.1989 - 11763/85

  It follows from the case-law of the Convention organs that as regards deprivation of possessions there is normally an inherent right to compensation (Eur. Court H.R., James and Others judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 36, para. 54 and Lithgow and Others judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 51, para. 122).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.03.1989 - 11763/85

  "Deprivation" may also exist where the measure complained of affects the substance of the property to such a degree that there has been a de facto expropriation or where the measure complained of "can be assimilated to a deprivation of possessions" (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 24, para. 63).

• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 22716/12

  ANDRZEJ RUCI?ƒSKI v. POLAND

  A right to compensation is not inherent in the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention regarding the control of the use of property (see J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd, cited above, § 79; and Banér v. Sweden, no. 11763/85, Commission decision of 9 March 1989, Decisions and Reports 60, p. 128, at p. 142).
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 5591/07

  ALLEN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Convention organs have previously concluded that, unlike in the case of a deprivation of possessions, there is not necessarily a right to compensation where measures are adopted to control the use of property (see Banér v. Sweden, no. 11763/85, Commission decision of 9 March 1989, unreported).
• EKMR, 09.01.1995 - 16717/90

  PAUGER v. AUSTRIA

  1 (Art. 6-1) neither guarantees a specific result of the proceedings in question, nor guarantees a right of access to a court with competence to invalidate or override a law (No. 11763/85, Dec. 9.3.89, D.R. 60 p. 128).

 
• EKMR, 28.06.1995 - 23464/94

  KÜHBERGER v. AUSTRIA

  Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides that the Commission may only deal with a matter "after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken." The "final decision" refers only to domestic remedies with can be considered to be "effective and sufficient" for the purpose of rectifying the subject-matter of the complaint (No. 11763/85, Dec. 9.3.89, D.R. 60 p. 137).
• EKMR, 21.10.1998 - 41242/98

  JONSSON ET AL v. ICELAND

  The question of the justification of the interference must therefore be examined under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, to establish whether the interference was lawful, whether it pursued a general interest, and whether it was proportionate and therefore could be deemed necessary (cf. No. 11763/85, Dec. 9.3.89, D.R. 60, p. 141).
• EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 22340/93

  W.N. v. AUSTRIA

  The Commission recalls that the period of six months runs from the date of the final domestic decision after effective and sufficient remedies have been used (cf. No. 11763/85, Dec. 9.3.89, D.R. 60 p. 128).
• EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 26265/92

  GÜNTHER v. SWEDEN

  If he had derived such income from the fishing, he would also have had a remedy for seeking compensation (see No. 11763/85, Dec. 9.3.89, D.R. 60 pp. 128, 140-143).
• EKMR, 26.06.1996 - 23397/94

  HUBER, STAUFER, SPORTANGLERBUND VÖCKLABRUCK, AND ECKHARDT v. AUSTRIA

  It is true that according to the Commission's jurisprudence fishing rights can be considered as possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (cf. No. 11763/85, Banér v. Sweden, Dec. 9.3.89, D.R. 60, p. 128 [139]) and that deprivation of property within the meaning of this article is not limited to cases where property is formally expropriated.
• EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 25652/94

  A.K.L. v. FINLAND

  It is established case-law that "the final decision" refers only to domestic remedies which can be considered to be "effective and sufficient" for the purpose of rectifying the subject-matter of the complaint (see, for example, No. 11763/85, Dec. 9.3.89, D.R. 60 p. 128).
• EKMR, 30.11.1994 - 21402/93

  SCHNABL v. AUSTRIA

  Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides that the Commission may only deal with a matter "after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken." "The final decision" refers only to domestic remedies which can be considered to be "efficient and sufficient" for the purpose of rectifying the subject-matter of the complaint (No. 11763/85, Dec. 9.3.89, D.R. 60 p. 137).