Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  E., I. AND M. v. FINLAND

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14556/89

  PAPAMICHALOPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 21342/93

  The Commission finds that the expropriation of part of the applicants' real property constituted a deprivation of their possessions which is to be examined under the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 260-B, pp. 69-70, paras. 41-46).
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 21342/93

  In ascertaining whether this condition has been satisfied a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable procedures (cf., e.g., Eur. Court H.R., Agosi judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, p. 19, para. 55; Eur. Court H.R., Hentrich v. France judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, p. 21, para. 49).
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 21342/93

  Although Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) does not guarantee a particular amount of compensation for a deprivation of property, deprivation without a compensation "reasonably related" to the value of a property would normally constitute a disproportionate interference with the owner's property rights (e.g., Eur. Court H.R., Lithgow and others judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, pp. 50- 51, para. 121).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 21342/93

  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 (e.g., Eur. Court H.R., Fredin judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192, p. 14, para. 41).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 21342/93

  In ascertaining whether this condition has been satisfied a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable procedures (cf., e.g., Eur. Court H.R., Agosi judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, p. 19, para. 55; Eur. Court H.R., Hentrich v. France judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, p. 21, para. 49).

• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 23662/12

  VUKOVIC v. CROATIA

  v. Austria, no. 12235/86, Commission decision of 15 October 1991, unpublished, and E., I. and M. v. Finland, no. 21342/93, Commission decision of 12 April 1996, unpublished).