Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  Z. v. GERMANY

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 27, Art. 27 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EKMR, 24.02.1997 - 19918/92

  SOCIETE "BRAUEREI FELDSCHLOSSCHEN FERDINAND GEIDEL" ET AUTRES c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 36265/97

  18890/91, 19048/91, 19049/91, 19342/92 and 19549/92 (Mayer et al. v. Germany, D.R. 85-A, p. 5) and of 24 February 1997 concerning Application No. 19918/92 (Geidel et al. v. Germany, unpublished).

  As regards the incompatibility ratione materiae of claims that the regulations of the Unification Treaty interfered with rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), the Commission held, in the above- mentioned decisions (Nos. 18890/91, 19048/91, 19049/91, 19342/92 and 19549/92 and No. 19918/92, op. cit.), as follows:.

  4.3.96, D.R. 85, p. 5; No. 19918/92, Dec.

• EKMR, 04.03.1996 - 19048/91

  WEIDLICH AND OTHERS v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 36265/97

  18890/91, 19048/91, 19049/91, 19342/92 and 19549/92 (Mayer et al. v. Germany, D.R. 85-A, p. 5) and of 24 February 1997 concerning Application No. 19918/92 (Geidel et al. v. Germany, unpublished).

  As regards the incompatibility ratione materiae of claims that the regulations of the Unification Treaty interfered with rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), the Commission held, in the above- mentioned decisions (Nos. 18890/91, 19048/91, 19049/91, 19342/92 and 19549/92 and No. 19918/92, op. cit.), as follows:.

  As the Commission has found above that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) is not applicable to the facts of which the applicant company complains, it cannot claim to have been discriminated against in the enjoyment of its property rights within the meaning of this provision (cf. Eur. Court HR, Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 23, para. 50; Nos. 18890/91, 19048/91, 19049/91, 19342/92, 19549/92 (joined), Dec.

• EKMR, 14.10.1977 - 7694/76

  X. A.G., Y. A.G., Z. A.G., GmbH v. the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 36265/97

  A person complaining of an interference with his property must show that such right existed (No. 7694/76, Dec. 14.10.77, D.R. 12, p. 131).

  As regards any possible compensation claim generated by the loss of the property, the Commission refers to its constant jurisprudence according to which it is not competent ratione temporis and ratione materiae to examine complaints relating to the refusal or denial of compensation claims based on facts that occurred prior to the entry into force of the Convention with respect to the State concerned (cf. No. 7694/76, Dec. 14.10.77, D.R. 12, p. 131; No. 7742/76, Dec. 4.7.78, D.R. 14, p. 146).

 
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 36265/97

  As the Commission has found above that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) is not applicable to the facts of which the applicant company complains, it cannot claim to have been discriminated against in the enjoyment of its property rights within the meaning of this provision (cf. Eur. Court HR, Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 23, para. 50; Nos. 18890/91, 19048/91, 19049/91, 19342/92, 19549/92 (joined), Dec.
• EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79

  Inze ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 36265/97

  Although the application of Article 14 (Art. 14) does not presuppose a breach of one or more of those provisions - and to this extent it is autonomous -, there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (Eur. Court HR, Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 17, para. 36).
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 36265/97

  In this respect, the Commission recalls the constant case- law of the Convention organs according to which "possessions" may be either 'existing possessions' (cf. Eur. Court HR, Van der Mussele v. Belgium judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, para. 48) or valuable assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will realise (cf. Eur. Court HR, Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, para. 51, and Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, para. 31).
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 36265/97

  In this respect, the Commission recalls the constant case- law of the Convention organs according to which "possessions" may be either 'existing possessions' (cf. Eur. Court HR, Van der Mussele v. Belgium judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, para. 48) or valuable assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will realise (cf. Eur. Court HR, Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, para. 51, and Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, para. 31).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

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

  Auszug aus EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 36265/97

  In this respect, the Commission recalls the constant case- law of the Convention organs according to which "possessions" may be either 'existing possessions' (cf. Eur. Court HR, Van der Mussele v. Belgium judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, para. 48) or valuable assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will realise (cf. Eur. Court HR, Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, para. 51, and Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, para. 31).
• EKMR, 04.10.1977 - 7655/76

  X., Y. and Z. c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 36265/97

  By contrast, the hope of recognition of the survival of a former property right which has not been susceptible of effective exercise for a long period (Nos. 7655-7657/76, Dec. 4.10.77, D.R. 12, p. 111) or a conditional claim which has lapsed as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition (No. 7775/77, Dec. 5.10.78, D.R. 15, p. 143) are not to be considered as 'possessions' within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).
• EKMR, 16.07.1981 - 8769/79

  X. c. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 36265/97

  In these circumstances, it was sufficient to refer to the relevant legal provisions (No. 8769/79, Dec. 16.7.81, D.R. 25, p. 240; No. 29753/96, Dec. 27.11.96, unpublished).
• EKMR, 05.10.1978 - 7775/77

  DE NAPOLES PACHECO v. BELGIUM
• EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 29753/96

  MÜLLER-EBERSTEIN v. GERMANY
• EKMR, 04.07.1978 - 7742/76

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