Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  THE PROVINCE OF BARI, SORRENTINO AND MESSENI NEMAGNA v. ITALY

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 25, Art. 25 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 15.09.1998 - 41877/98
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 41877/98

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EKMR, 28.06.1995 - 26114/95

  CONSEJO GENERAL DE COLEGIOS OFICIALES DE ECONOMISTAS DE ESPAÑA contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.09.1998 - 41877/98

  Therefore, they cannot be considered as non-governmental organisations within the meaning of Article 25 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Nos. 26114/95 and 26455/95 (joined), Dec.
• EKMR, 18.05.1994 - 18598/91

  SYGOUNIS, KOTSIS ET L'

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.09.1998 - 41877/98

  As to the second applicant, namely the President of the Province of Bari in his capacity as a citizen of that city, the Commission recalls that persons who are unable to demonstrate that they are personally affected by the measure or the inaction they criticise cannot claim to be the victim of a violation of the Convention (see No. 18598/91, Dec. 18.5.94, D.R. 78-B, p. 71).
• EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

  ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.09.1998 - 41877/98

  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 Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden judgment of 23 October 1989, Series A no. 163, p. 16, para. 53).

 
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10522/83

  Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.09.1998 - 41877/98

  In these conditions the State inevitably enjoys a wide margin of discretion (see also, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Mellacher and others v. Austria judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169, p. 28, par. 53).
• EGMR, 16.12.1997 - 21353/93

  CAMENZIND v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.09.1998 - 41877/98

  The Commission recalls that the right recognised by this provision may only be exercised in respect of an arguable claim and that a claim cannot be regarded as arguable where the Commission has rejected the applicant's substantive complaints as disclosing no appearance of a violation of the Convention (see for example No. 21353/93, Dec. 27.2.95, D.R. 80-A, p. 101).
• EKMR, 20.02.1995 - 20944/92

  S.C. contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.09.1998 - 41877/98

  In the circumstances of the present case, the Commission considers that the general rule contained in the first sentence of the first paragraph cannot be interpreted as imposing a positive obligation on the State authorities to intervene financially in favour of a private property damaged as a result of events which, so far, cannot be considered as attributable to the behaviour of a State authority and where no such obligation has been imposed on the State authorities by a domestic law, regulation or any other provision (see, mutatis mutandis, No. 20944/92, Dec. 20.2.95, D.R. 80-B, p. 78).