Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ESTATE OF EDUARD IV HAAS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EKMR, 09.05.1986 - 11628/85

  LINDE v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 30143/96

  b) To the extent that the applicant complains, in substance, of its inability to have its predecessor's property restored, the Commission recalls that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) applies only to existing possessions and it does not guarantee any right to acquire property (No. 11628/85, Dec. 9.5.86, D.R. 47 p. 271, with further references).
• EKMR, 28.06.1995 - 24506/94

  GASPARETZ v. the SLOVAK REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 30143/96

  The Commission considers that this dispossession is to be regarded as an instantaneous act which did not produce a continuing situation of "deprivation of right" (cf. No. 7742/76, Dec. 4.7.87, D.R. 14 p. 146; No. 24506/94, Gasparetz v. the Slovak Republic, Dec. 28.6.95, unpublished).
• EKMR, 12.10.1988 - 12164/86

  AGNEESSENS contre la BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 30143/96

  However, a person complaining of an interference with his or her right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) must show that such a right existed (cf. No. 12164/86, Dec. 12.10.88, D.R. 58 p. 63).

 
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 30143/96

  The Commission therefore considers that in view of the domestic courts' finding that the applicant did not own the company in Liberec there has been no interference with the applicant's rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) as interpreted by the Convention organs (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Lithgow and Others judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 46, para. 106, with further references, and, mutatis mutandis, No. 11949/86, Dec. 1.12.86, D.R. 51, pp. 195, 211).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 30143/96

  The Commission considers that this claim cannot be considered as a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (cf., mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court H.R., Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, para. 31).
• EKMR, 04.07.1978 - 7742/76

  A.B. et SOCIETE A.S. c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 30143/96

  The Commission considers that this dispossession is to be regarded as an instantaneous act which did not produce a continuing situation of "deprivation of right" (cf. No. 7742/76, Dec. 4.7.87, D.R. 14 p. 146; No. 24506/94, Gasparetz v. the Slovak Republic, Dec. 28.6.95, unpublished).
• EKMR, 01.07.1985 - 11278/84

  Famille K. et W. c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 30143/96

  However, Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention only prohibits discrimination with respect to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention (cf. No. 11278/84, Dec. 1.7.85, D.R. 43 pp. 216, 220).
• EKMR, 01.12.1986 - 11949/86

  D.P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 30143/96

  The Commission therefore considers that in view of the domestic courts' finding that the applicant did not own the company in Liberec there has been no interference with the applicant's rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) as interpreted by the Convention organs (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Lithgow and Others judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 46, para. 106, with further references, and, mutatis mutandis, No. 11949/86, Dec. 1.12.86, D.R. 51, pp. 195, 211).

• EKMR, 21.10.1998 - 36939/97

  ROZMAN v. THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

  In these circumstances, the Commission considers that there has been no interference with the applicant's rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as interpreted by the Convention organs (see Eur. Court HR, Lithgow and Others judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 46, para. 106; No. 30143/96, Estate of Eduard IV Haas v. the Czech Republic, Dec. 15.5.96, pp. 5, 6, unpublished).