Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TITTERRELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EKMR, 08.03.1994 - 20490/92

  ISKCON ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 28911/95

  In particular the Commission recalls that, as a general principle, the protection of property rights ensured by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) cannot be used as a ground for claiming planning permission to extend permitted use of property (see. No. 20490/92, Dec. 8.3.94, D.R. 76-A, p. 108).

  The Commission must next determine whether a fair balance was struck between the general interest of the community and the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see No. 20490/92, Dec. 8.3.94, D.R. 76-A, p. 108 with further references and No. 11723/85, Dec. 7.5.87, D.R. 52, p. 256).

• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 28911/95

  (see No. 11185/84, Dec. 11.3.85, D.R. 42, p. 278; Eur. Court HR, Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 25, paras. 55-56 with further references).

  He was aware, having negotiated the original planning permission for holiday chalets, of the restrictions on development (see the above mentioned judgement of 29 November 1991, Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, Series A no. 222, para. 59).

• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 28911/95

  The applicant's attempt to obtain legal aid in 1995 to bring further proceedings against the Tunbridge Wells Council could not alter the position as it was simply an attempt to re-litigate issues decided in July 1989 and does not constitute an effective remedy (see Eur. Court HR, Van Osterwijck v. Belgium judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 40, pp. 13-14, para. 27).

 
• EKMR, 07.05.1987 - 11723/85

  CHATER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 28911/95

  The Commission must next determine whether a fair balance was struck between the general interest of the community and the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see No. 20490/92, Dec. 8.3.94, D.R. 76-A, p. 108 with further references and No. 11723/85, Dec. 7.5.87, D.R. 52, p. 256).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 28911/95

  Further the Commission notes that the applicant was concerned in a commercial venture which, by its very nature, involved an element of risk (see Eur. Court HR, Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, pp. 17-18, paras. 53 and 55 and Fredin v. Sweden judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192, pp. 17-18, paras. 54-55).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 28911/95

  Further the Commission notes that the applicant was concerned in a commercial venture which, by its very nature, involved an element of risk (see Eur. Court HR, Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, pp. 17-18, paras. 53 and 55 and Fredin v. Sweden judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192, pp. 17-18, paras. 54-55).
• EKMR, 11.03.1985 - 11185/84

  HERRICK v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 28911/95

  (see No. 11185/84, Dec. 11.3.85, D.R. 42, p. 278; Eur. Court HR, Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 25, paras. 55-56 with further references).