Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRUG VON NIDDA UND VON FALKENSTEIN v. GERMANY

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EKMR, 04.07.1978 - 7742/76

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

  Auszug aus EKMR, 24.02.1997 - 25043/94

  The Commission recalls that a deprivation of ownership or other rights in rem is in principle an instantaneous act and does not produce a continuing situation of "deprivation of right" (cf. No 7742/76, Dec. 4.7.78, D.R. 14, p. 146).

  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 (see No. 7694/76, Dec. 14.10.77, D.R. 12, p. 131; No. 7742/76, Dec. 4.7.78, D.R. 14, p. 146).

• 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, 24.02.1997 - 25043/94

  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 (see 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, 24.02.1997 - 25043/94

  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 complains, he cannot claim to have been discriminated against in the enjoyment of his property rights within the meaning of this provision (see Eur. Court HR, Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 23, para. 50).

 
• EKMR, 04.03.1996 - 19048/91

  WEIDLICH AND OTHERS v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 24.02.1997 - 25043/94

  18890/91, 19048/91, 19049/91, 19342/92 and 19549/92 (Mayer et al. v. Germany, D.R. 85-A, p. 5), where it dismissed similar complaints as being inadmissible.
• EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79

  Inze ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EKMR, 24.02.1997 - 25043/94

  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 (see 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, 24.02.1997 - 25043/94

  In this respect, the Commission recalls that "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. 20, para. 31).
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 24.02.1997 - 25043/94

  In this respect, the Commission recalls that "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. 20, para. 31).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

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

  Auszug aus EKMR, 24.02.1997 - 25043/94

  In this respect, the Commission recalls that "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. 20, para. 31).
• EKMR, 04.10.1977 - 7655/76

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

  Auszug aus EKMR, 24.02.1997 - 25043/94

  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, 05.10.1978 - 7775/77

  DE NAPOLES PACHECO v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 24.02.1997 - 25043/94

  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).