Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GÜNTHER v. SWEDEN

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

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

• EKMR, 09.03.1989 - 11763/85

  BANER c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 26265/92

  If he had derived such income from the fishing, he would also have had a remedy for seeking compensation (see No. 11763/85, Dec. 9.3.89, D.R. 60 pp. 128, 140-143).
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 26265/92

  In ascertaining whether this condition has been satisfied a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable procedures (see, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Agosi v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, p. 19, para. 55; Hentrich v. France judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, p. 21, para. 49).
• EGMR, 26.06.1986 - 8543/79

  VAN MARLE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 26265/92

  However, his right to licence fishing was one facet of his property rights and in his particular case the related economic interests arguably constituted - together with his clientele - "possessions" for the purposes of Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (cf., Eur. Court HR, Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101, p. 13, paras. 41-42).

 
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 26265/92

  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, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Fredin v. Sweden judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192, p. 14, para. 41).
• EGMR, 25.03.1994 - 17116/90

  SCHERER v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 26265/92

  The Commission recalls that close relatives of a deceased applicant are in principle entitled to take his or her place in the proceedings before the Convention organs (see, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Scherer v. Switzerland judgment of 25 March 1994, Series A no. 287, pp. 4-15, paras. 31-32 with further references; No. 25758/94, Dec. 7.3.96).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 26265/92

  In ascertaining whether this condition has been satisfied a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable procedures (see, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Agosi v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, p. 19, para. 55; Hentrich v. France judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, p. 21, para. 49).