Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FIRMA \

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOCIETE «BRAUEREI FELDSCHLOSSCHEN FERDINAND GEIDEL» ET AUTRES c. ALLEMAGNE

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 24.02.1997 - 19918/92

  As the Commission has found above that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) is not applicable to the facts of which the applicants complain, they cannot claim to have been discriminated against in the enjoyment of their 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).
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EKMR, 24.02.1997 - 19918/92

  However, he has not shown that in respect of this complaint he obtained a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (No. 8499/79, Dec. 7.10.80, D.R. 21, p. 176 with reference to Eur. Court HR, König v. Germany judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, p. 22, para. 58).
• EKMR, 04.03.1996 - 19048/91

  WEIDLICH AND OTHERS v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 24.02.1997 - 19918/92

  19048/91/19049/91, 19342/91 and 19549/92. The latter applications were declared inadmissible on 4 March 1996.

 
• EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79

  Inze ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EKMR, 24.02.1997 - 19918/92

  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 - 19918/92

  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 - 19918/92

  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 - 19918/92

  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, 21.05.1998 - 37696/97

  VON RIGAL-VON KRIEGSHEIM v. GERMANY

  18890/91, 19048/91, 19049/91, 19342/92 and 19549/92 (Mayer et al. v. Germany, D.R. 85-A, p. 5) and of 24 February 1997 concerning Application No. 19918/92 (Geidel et al. v. Germany, unpublished), where similar complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) were declared inadmissible.

  The relevant part of this decision (No. 19918/92, Dec. 24.2.97, unpublished) reads as follows:.

  4.3.96, D.R. 85, p. 5; No. 19918/92, Dec.

• EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 36713/97

  GESCHÄFTSHAUS GmbH v. GERMANY

  18890/91, 19048/91, 19049/91, 19342/92 and 19549/92 (Mayer et al. v. Germany, D.R. 85-A, p. 5) and of 24 February 1997 concerning Application No. 19918/92 (Geidel et al. v. Germany, unpublished).

  As regards the incompatibility ratione materiae of claims that the regulations of the Unification Treaty interfered with rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), the Commission held, in the above- mentioned decisions (Nos. 18890/91, 19048/91, 19049/91, 19342/92 and 19549/92 and No. 19918/92, op. cit.), as follows:.

  4.3.96, D.R. 85, p. 5; No. 19918/92, Dec.

• EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 34197/96

  KREMER-VIERECK AND VIERECK v. GERMANY

  18890/91, 19048/91, 19049/91, 19342/92 and 19549/92 (Mayer et al. v. Germany, D.R. 85-A, p. 5) and of 24 February 1997 concerning Application No. 19918/92 (Geidel et al. v. Germany, unpublished), where similar complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) were declared inadmissible.

  The relevant part of this decision (No. 19918/92, Dec. 24.2.97, unpublished) reads as follows:.

  4.3.96, D.R. 85, p. 5; No. 19918/92, Dec.

 
• EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 36265/97

  Z. v. GERMANY

  18890/91, 19048/91, 19049/91, 19342/92 and 19549/92 (Mayer et al. v. Germany, D.R. 85-A, p. 5) and of 24 February 1997 concerning Application No. 19918/92 (Geidel et al. v. Germany, unpublished).

  As regards the incompatibility ratione materiae of claims that the regulations of the Unification Treaty interfered with rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), the Commission held, in the above- mentioned decisions (Nos. 18890/91, 19048/91, 19049/91, 19342/92 and 19549/92 and No. 19918/92, op. cit.), as follows:.

  4.3.96, D.R. 85, p. 5; No. 19918/92, Dec.

• EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 37255/97

  HEUER v. GERMANY

  18890/91, 19048/91, 19049/91, 19342/92 and 19549/92 (Mayer et al. v. Germany, D.R. 85-A, p. 5) and of 24 February 1997 concerning Application No. 19918/92 (Geidel et al. v. Germany, unpublished), where similar complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) were declared inadmissible.

  The relevant part of this decision (No. 19918/92, Dec. 24.2.97, unpublished) reads as follows:.

  4.3.96, D.R. 85, p. 5; No. 19918/92, Dec.

• EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 35223/97

  PELTZER AND VON WERDER v. GERMANY

  The relevant part of this decision (No. 19918/92, Dec. 24.2.97, unpublished) reads as follows:.