Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 21.10.1998 - 36939/97 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1998,31173) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ROZMAN v. THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 27, Art. 27 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80
LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 21.10.1998 - 36939/97
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A no. 102, p. 46, para. 106; No. 30143/96, Estate of Eduard IV Haas v. the Czech Republic, Dec. 15.5.96, pp. 5, 6, unpublished). - EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80
VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EKMR, 21.10.1998 - 36939/97
The Commission further recalls that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies only to existing possessions and does not guarantee a right to acquire property (see, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Van der Mussele v. Belgium judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, para. 48; No. 25461/94, Seidlová v. the Slovak Republic, Dec. 6.9.95, unpublished). - EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85
H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EKMR, 21.10.1998 - 36939/97
In this respect, the Commission recalls that its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited, and that it is mainly for domestic courts to rule on such issues (see. e.g., Eur. Court HR, Håkansson and Sturesson judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, p. 16, para. 47).
- EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 25461/94
SEIDLOVÁ v. THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC
Auszug aus EKMR, 21.10.1998 - 36939/97
The Commission further recalls that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies only to existing possessions and does not guarantee a right to acquire property (see, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Van der Mussele v. Belgium judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, para. 48; No. 25461/94, Seidlová v. the Slovak Republic, Dec. 6.9.95, unpublished). - EKMR, 04.03.1996 - 23131/93
BREZNY and BREZNY contre la REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE
Auszug aus EKMR, 21.10.1998 - 36939/97
Anyone who complains of an interference with one of his or her property rights must show that such a right existed (see No. 23131/93, Dec. 4.3.96, D.R. 85-B, pp. 65, 80). - EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 30143/96
ESTATE OF EDUARD IV HAAS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Auszug aus EKMR, 21.10.1998 - 36939/97
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).