Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 29576/95 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
IRVINE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87
RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 29576/95
They recall that a claim will only be a possession once it has "given rise to a debt... that was sufficiently established to be enforceable" (see Eur. Court HR, Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Adreadis v. Greece judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, pp. 84-85, paras. 60-61).As to the application of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant, referring to the judgment of Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium (Eur. Court HR, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332) and the judgment of Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece (Eur. Court HR, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B), argues that his claim for damages in tort for personal injury was clearly sufficiently established to constitute "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
- EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80
LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 29576/95
The requisite proportionality will not be found if the person concerned has had to bear an individual and excessive burden (see, for example, Eur. Court HR, Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 50, para. 120). - EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84
TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 29576/95
However, the three rules are not "distinct" in the sense of being unconnected: 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, for example, Eur. Court HR, Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, pp. 22-23, para. 54; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom judgment of 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316, pp. 36-37, para. 29). - EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91
PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 29576/95
As to the application of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant, referring to the judgment of Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium (Eur. Court HR, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332) and the judgment of Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece (Eur. Court HR, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B), argues that his claim for damages in tort for personal injury was clearly sufficiently established to constitute "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.