Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BERGAUER AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 17120/04

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be either "existing possessions" (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48) or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realized (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 17120/04

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be either "existing possessions" (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48) or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realized (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31).

• EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 47550/06

  Fall Preußische Treuhand gegen Polen

  die Tschechische Republik (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 17120/04, 4. Mai 2004 und M. u.a. ./. Deutschland [GK] (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerden Nr. 71916/01, 71917/01 und 10260/02, Rdnr. 74, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 55056/10

  SIMAITIENE v. LITHUANIA

  The Court has also held that in regulating the restitution process the Contracting States have a wide discretion, including over the rules of how the compensation for long-extinguished property rights should be assessed (see Jantner v. Slovakia, no. 39050/97, § 34, 4 March 2003, Bergauer and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 17120/04, 13 December 2005, and Paukstis, cited above, § 74).
• EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 51752/10

  KAVALIAUSKAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  The Court has also held that in regulating the restitution process the Contracting States have wide discretion, including over the rules of how compensation for long-extinguished property rights should be assessed (see Jantner v. Slovakia, no. 39050/97, § 34, 4 March 2003; Bergauer and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 17120/04, 13 December 2005; and Paukstis v. Lithuania, no. 17467/07, § 74, 24 November 2015).

 
• EGMR, 29.10.2019 - 48171/10

  AKVARDAR c. TURQUIE

  À cet égard, le Gouvernement précise qu'il est de jurisprudence bien établie que cette disposition ne peut être interprétée comme faisant peser sur les États contractants une obligation générale de restituer les biens leur ayant été transférés avant qu'ils ne ratifient la Convention (Bergauer et autres c. République tchèque (déc.), no 17120/04, 13 décembre 2005).
• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 17467/07

  PAUKSTIS v. LITHUANIA

  The Court is also cautious to note that in regulating the restitution process the Contracting States have a wide discretion, including over the rules of how compensation for long-extinguished property rights should be assessed (see Jantner v. Slovakia, no. 39050/97, § 34, 4 March 2003, and Bergauer and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 17120/04, 13 December 2005).
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 14991/08

  DRACKA ET HLAVENKOVÁ c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  La Cour juge utile de rappeler à cet égard que la Convention n'impose pas aux Etats contractants une obligation générale de restituer les biens leur ayant été transférés avant qu'ils ne ratifient la Convention ; l'on ne saurait donc soutenir que la République tchèque soit obligée de restituer, à leurs propriétaires d'origine, les biens confisqués en vertu des décrets présidentiels (voir Bergauer et autres c. République tchèque (déc.), no 17120/04, 13 décembre 2005).
• EGMR, 18.04.2017 - 2657/10

  VALANCIENE v. LITHUANIA

  The Court has also held that in regulating the restitution process the Contracting States have a wide discretion, including over the rules of how the compensation for long-extinguished property rights should be assessed (see Jantner v. Slovakia, no. 39050/97, § 34, 4 March 2003, Bergauer and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 17120/04, 13 December 2005, and Paukstis, cited above, § 74).
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 70720/11

  WOZNY v. POLAND

  However, as the Court has consistently held, in particular within the context of expropriation measures effected by the post- Second World War regulation of property, the deprivation of ownership or another right in rem is in principle an instantaneous act and does not constitute a continuous "deprivation of a right" (see, among many other authorities, Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC] (dec.) no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Smoleanu v. Romania, no. 30324/96, § 46, 3 December 2002; Bergauer and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 17120/04, 13 December 2005; and Von Maltzan and Others v. Germany [GC] (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 17064/06

  SHUB v. LITHUANIA

  Nor can it be interpreted as creating any general obligation for the Contracting States to restore property which had been expropriated before they ratified the Convention, or as imposing any restrictions on their freedom to determine the scope and conditions of any property restitution to former owners (see Bergauer and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 17120/04, 4 May 2004; Jantner v. Slovakia, no. 39050/97, § 34, 4 March 2003; mutatis mutandis, Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 68750/11

  MACH v. POLAND

  However, as the Court has consistently held (in particular within the context of expropriation measures effected by the post-Second World War regulation of ownership relations), the deprivation of ownership or another right in rem is in principle an instantaneous act and does not constitute a continuous "deprivation of a right" (see, among many other authorities, Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC] (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Smoleanu v. Romania, no. 30324/96, § 46, 3 December 2002; Bergauer and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 17120/04, 13 December 2005; and Von Maltzan and Others v. Germany [GC] (dec.), nos.