Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAGHINADZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-3 No violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 8 Violation of P1-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 18768/05
• EGMR, 04.05.2016 - 18768/05

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  It should be reiterated, in that connection, that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention has to operate with a degree of deference to domestic formalities, in particular when, as in the case at hand, considerations of legal certainty are at stake (see, for example, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 53, ECHR 2000-VII, and Agbovi v. Germany (dec.), no. 71759/01, 25 September 2006).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  However, Article 5 § 4 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as requiring that a judicial review of detention be attended by exactly the same degree of protection as is required by Article 6 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation (see, for instance, Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 125, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 18.01.2001 - 27238/95

  CHAPMAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  The Government denied that there had been any violation of this provision, on the same grounds as those advanced in connection with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Referring to the Court's judgment in the case of Chapman v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 27238/95, § 99, ECHR 2001-I), they also added that Article 8 of the Convention did not guarantee the right to be provided with a home.

 
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  It should be pointed out that, when rights under the Convention or its Protocols are at stake, the Court is not bound by the findings of the domestic courts and may depart from them or set them aside where this is rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, among many other authorities, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II; Bruncrona v. Finland, no. 41673/98, § 75, 16 November 2004; J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, § 75, ECHR 2007-X; Khamidov, cited above, § 135; Matyar v. Turkey, no. 23423/94, § 108, 21 February 2002).
• EGMR, 25.09.2006 - 71759/01

  D. K. A. gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  It should be reiterated, in that connection, that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention has to operate with a degree of deference to domestic formalities, in particular when, as in the case at hand, considerations of legal certainty are at stake (see, for example, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 53, ECHR 2000-VII, and Agbovi v. Germany (dec.), no. 71759/01, 25 September 2006).
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 38736/04

  FC MRETEBI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  The respondent State is expected to make all feasible reparation for the consequences of the violation in such a manner as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see, amongst others, Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, § 71, ECHR 2006-...; FC Mretebi v. Georgia, no. 38736/04, § 61, 31 July 2007; and Assanidze, cited above, § 198).
• EGMR, 30.08.2007 - 44302/02

  J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LTD ET J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LAND LTD c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  It should be pointed out that, when rights under the Convention or its Protocols are at stake, the Court is not bound by the findings of the domestic courts and may depart from them or set them aside where this is rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, among many other authorities, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II; Bruncrona v. Finland, no. 41673/98, § 75, 16 November 2004; J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, § 75, ECHR 2007-X; Khamidov, cited above, § 135; Matyar v. Turkey, no. 23423/94, § 108, 21 February 2002).
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 21911/03

  TUDOR TUDOR v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  44698/06, 44700/06, etc., § 56, 1 December 2009; Tudor Tudor v. Romania, no. 21911/03, § 29, 24 March 2009).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  As to the Government's argument that the domestic courts confirmed ex post facto the first applicant's dispossession and eviction, the Court reiterates, in the light of its findings above, that such adversarial proceedings, in order for them to represent an effective procedural safeguard against arbitrariness, should have, according to the domestic law, preceded the interference in question (see, mutatis mutandis, Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, §§ 41, 42, 45 and 46, Series A no. 296-A).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

  Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05

  The concept of "possessions" is not limited to "existing possessions" but may also cover assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he or she has at least a reasonable and "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right (see, for instance, Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 56547/00

  P., C. ET S. c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 62543/00

  GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27693/95

  CELIKBILEK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 72118/01

  KHAMIDOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAGHINADZE AND OTHERS AGAINST GEORGIA

  Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAGHINADZE ET AUTRES CONTRE LA GÉORGIE

  Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 18768/05
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 18768/05
• EGMR, 04.05.2016 - 18768/05

Wird zitiert von ... (10)

• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 15256/05

  TCHANKOTADZE v. GEORGIA

  Out of those three court decisions, the first two - the decisions of 19 and 25 March 2004 - constituted two instances of the same habeas corpus procedure bearing on the initial period of the applicant's pre-trial detention, with the latter decision, which was delivered by the appellate instance, being the final one (compare Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 18768/05, § 136, 27 May 2010).
• EGMR, 04.02.2014 - 25376/06

  CENI c. ITALIE

  L'espérance légitime de pouvoir continuer à jouir du bien doit reposer sur une « base suffisante en droit interne ", par exemple lorsqu'elle est confirmée par une jurisprudence bien établie des tribunaux ou lorsqu'elle est fondée sur une disposition législative ou sur un acte légal concernant l'intérêt patrimonial en question (Kopecky, précité, § 52, Depalle, précité, § 63, et Saghinadze et autres c. Géorgie, no 18768/05, § 103, 27 mai 2010).
• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 77504/13

  RADIO ATHINA MONOPROSOPI ETAIRIA PERIORISMENIS EFTHYNIS v. GREECE

  An "expectation" is "legitimate" if there is sufficient basis for that interest in national law - for example if it is based on either a legislative provision or a legal act bearing on the property interest in question (see Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 18768/05, § 103, 27 May 2010) or where there is settled case-law of the domestic courts confirming it (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 52, ECHR 2004-IX, and Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, § 39, 29 March 2011).

 
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 46154/11

  VALLE PIERIMPIÈ SOCIETÀ AGRICOLA S.P.A c. ITALIE

  L'espérance légitime de pouvoir continuer à jouir du bien doit reposer sur une « base suffisante en droit interne ", par exemple lorsqu'elle est confirmée par une jurisprudence bien établie des tribunaux ou lorsqu'elle est fondée sur une disposition législative ou sur un acte légal concernant l'intérêt patrimonial en question (Kopecky, précité, § 52 ; Depalle, précité, § 63 ; et Saghinadze et autres c. Géorgie, no 18768/05, § 103, 27 mai 2010).
• EGMR, 13.06.2023 - 16757/21

  AKTÜRK ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE

  L'« espérance légitime'de pouvoir continuer à jouir d'un « bien'doit reposer sur une base suffisante en droit interne ; tel est le cas par exemple lorsqu'elle est confirmée par une jurisprudence bien établie des tribunaux ou lorsqu'elle est fondée sur une disposition législative ou sur un acte légal concernant l'intérêt patrimonial en question (Kopecký c. Slovaquie [GC], no 44912/98, § 52, CEDH 2004-IX, Depalle c. France [GC], no 34044/02, § 63, CEDH 2010, et Saghinadze et autres c. Géorgie, no 18768/05, § 103, 27 mai 2010).
• EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 28106/10

  KAYA c. TURQUIE

  L"« espérance légitime'de pouvoir continuer à jouir d'un « bien'doit reposer sur une base suffisante en droit interne ; tel est le cas par exemple lorsqu'elle est confirmée par une jurisprudence bien établie des tribunaux ou lorsqu'elle est fondée sur une disposition législative ou sur un acte légal concernant l'intérêt patrimonial en question (Kopecký c. Slovaquie [GC], noo44912/98, § 52, CEDH 2004-IX, Depalle c. France [GC], noo34044/02, § 63, CEDH 2010, et Saghinadze et autres c. Géorgie, no 18768/05, § 103, 27 mai 2010).
• EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 4601/06

  ELIF KIZIL c. TURQUIE

  L"« espérance légitime'de pouvoir continuer à jouir d'un « bien'doit reposer sur une base suffisante en droit interne ; ce qui est le cas par exemple lorsqu'elle est confirmée par une jurisprudence bien établie des tribunaux ou lorsqu'elle est fondée sur une disposition législative ou sur un acte légal concernant l'intérêt patrimonial en question (Kopecký c. Slovaquie [GC], no 44912/98, § 52, CEDH 2004-IX, Depalle c. France [GC], no 34044/02, § 63, CEDH 2010, et Saghinadze et autres c. Géorgie, no 18768/05, § 103, 27 mai 2010).
• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 43987/11

  VASILJEVIC AND DROBNJAKOVIC v. SERBIA

  An "expectation" is "legitimate" if there is sufficient basis for that interest in national law - for example if it is based on either a legislative provision or a legal act bearing on the property interest in question (see Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 18768/05, § 103, 27 May 2010) or where there is settled case-law of the domestic courts confirming it (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 52, ECHR 2004-IX, and Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, § 39, 29 March 2011).
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 36021/09

  TAS c. TURQUIE

  L"« espérance légitime'de pouvoir continuer à jouir d'un « bien'doit reposer sur une base suffisante en droit interne ; tel est le cas par exemple lorsqu'elle est confirmée par une jurisprudence bien établie des tribunaux ou lorsqu'elle est fondée sur une disposition législative ou sur un acte légal concernant l'intérêt patrimonial en question (Kopecký c. Slovaquie [GC], no 44912/98, § 52, CEDH 2004-IX, Depalle c. France [GC], no 34044/02, § 63, CEDH 2010, et Saghinadze et autres c. Géorgie, no 18768/05, § 103, 27 mai 2010).
• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 53794/12

  BRKIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  An "expectation" is "legitimate" if there is sufficient basis for that interest in national law, for example if it is based on either a legislative provision or a legal act bearing on the property interest in question (Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 18768/05, § 103, 27 May 2010) or where there is settled case-law of the domestic courts confirming it (Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 52, ECHR 2004-IX; and Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, § 39, 29 March 2011).