Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KÖNYV-TÁR KFT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Preliminary objections dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 1 of ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KÖNYV-TÁR KFT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objections dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 1 of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KÖNYV-TÁR KFT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 21623/13
• EGMR, 05.10.2021 - 21623/13

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (34)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.06.1986 - 8543/79

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 21623/13

  This clientele had, in many respects, the nature of a private right and constituted an asset, and hence a possession within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1 (see Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, § 41, Series A no. 101, and Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, § 89, 13 March 2012).

  In the case of Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, the Court held that "by dint of their own work, the applicants had built up a clientèle; this had in many respects the nature of a private right and constituted an asset and, hence, a possession within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1" (see Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, § 41, Series A no. 101).

  "The applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1... extends also to professional practices and their clientele, as these are entities of a certain worth that have in many respects the nature of private rights, and thus constitute assets (see among many authorities, Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, § 41, Series A no. 101, and Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 81, 24 May 2005)." (Oklešen and Pokopališko Pogrebne Storitve Leopold Oklešen S.P. v. Slovenia, no. 35264/04, § 54, 30 November 2010).

  [8] Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101.

• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 35264/04

  OKLESEN AND POKOPALISKO POGREBNE STORITVE LEOPOLD OKLESEN S.P. v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 21623/13

  The applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 extends, among others, to professional practices, their clientele and their goodwill, as these are entities of a certain worth that have in many respects the nature of private rights, and thus constitute assets, being possessions within the meaning of the first sentence of this provision (see Van Marle and Others, cited above, § 41; Döring v. Germany (dec.), no. 37595/97, ECHR 1999-VIII; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II; Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 81, 24 May 2005; and Oklešen and Pokopališko Pogrebne Storitve Leopold Oklešen S.P. v. Slovenia, no. 35264/04, § 54, 30 November 2010; compare and contrast Tipp 24 AG v. Germany (dec.), no. 21252/09, § 26, 27 November 2012).

  "The applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1... extends also to professional practices and their clientele, as these are entities of a certain worth that have in many respects the nature of private rights, and thus constitute assets (see among many authorities, Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, § 41, Series A no. 101, and Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 81, 24 May 2005)." (Oklešen and Pokopališko Pogrebne Storitve Leopold Oklešen S.P. v. Slovenia, no. 35264/04, § 54, 30 November 2010).

  [15] Oklešen and Pokopališko Pogrebne Storitve Leopold Oklešen S.P. v. Slovenia, no. 35264/04, § 54, 30 November 2010.

• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 21623/13

  [5] AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108; Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A; and Bowler International Unit v. France, no. 1946/06, 23 July 2009.

  [45] Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A.

• EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 20653/13

  VELIGZHANIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 21623/13

  As of the 2013/14 school year the applicant companies were suffocated by the omnipresent State-run company in the schoolbook distribution market.

  Given the above considerations, this case amounts to "deprivation of a possession", because the applicants effectively lost their clientele as of the 2013/14 school year, an asset that they had garnered over twenty years of work in an open and unregulated market.

• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 37683/97

  IAN EDGAR (LIVERPOOL) LIMITED contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 21623/13

  In the present case it is noteworthy that the State made it impossible for the applicant companies to continue their business but provided no possibility of judicial redress or any financial compensation (see, a contrario, Pinnacle Meat Processors Company and 8 Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33298/96, Commission decision of 21 October 1998, unreported, and Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Limited v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, 25 January 2000).

  [6] Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I, and Denimark Limited and 11 Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37660/97, 26 September 2000.

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 21623/13

  The third rule recognises that the States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest, by enforcing such laws as they deem necessary for the purpose; it is contained in the second paragraph (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52).

  [2] Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52.

• EGMR, 06.02.2003 - 71630/01

  A. W. und andere gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 21623/13

  The applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 extends, among others, to professional practices, their clientele and their goodwill, as these are entities of a certain worth that have in many respects the nature of private rights, and thus constitute assets, being possessions within the meaning of the first sentence of this provision (see Van Marle and Others, cited above, § 41; Döring v. Germany (dec.), no. 37595/97, ECHR 1999-VIII; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II; Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 81, 24 May 2005; and Oklešen and Pokopališko Pogrebne Storitve Leopold Oklešen S.P. v. Slovenia, no. 35264/04, § 54, 30 November 2010; compare and contrast Tipp 24 AG v. Germany (dec.), no. 21252/09, § 26, 27 November 2012).

  [11] Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II.

• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 21252/09

  Deutscher Glücksspielstaatsvertrag verstößt nicht gegen Europäische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 21623/13

  The applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 extends, among others, to professional practices, their clientele and their goodwill, as these are entities of a certain worth that have in many respects the nature of private rights, and thus constitute assets, being possessions within the meaning of the first sentence of this provision (see Van Marle and Others, cited above, § 41; Döring v. Germany (dec.), no. 37595/97, ECHR 1999-VIII; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II; Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 81, 24 May 2005; and Oklešen and Pokopališko Pogrebne Storitve Leopold Oklešen S.P. v. Slovenia, no. 35264/04, § 54, 30 November 2010; compare and contrast Tipp 24 AG v. Germany (dec.), no. 21252/09, § 26, 27 November 2012).

  [7] Tipp 24 AG v. Germany (dec.), no. 21252/09, 27 November 2012.

• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 23780/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 21623/13

  This clientele had, in many respects, the nature of a private right and constituted an asset, and hence a possession within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1 (see Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, § 41, Series A no. 101, and Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, § 89, 13 March 2012).

  "The Court has previously considered that rights akin to property rights existed in cases concerning professional practices where by dint of their own work, the applicants concerned had built up a clientele." (Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, § 90, 13 March 2012).

• EGMR, 09.11.1999 - 37595/97

  Rücknahme der Zulassung als Rechtsanwalt auf Grund vorheriger Tätigkeit als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 21623/13

  The applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 extends, among others, to professional practices, their clientele and their goodwill, as these are entities of a certain worth that have in many respects the nature of private rights, and thus constitute assets, being possessions within the meaning of the first sentence of this provision (see Van Marle and Others, cited above, § 41; Döring v. Germany (dec.), no. 37595/97, ECHR 1999-VIII; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II; Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 81, 24 May 2005; and Oklešen and Pokopališko Pogrebne Storitve Leopold Oklešen S.P. v. Slovenia, no. 35264/04, § 54, 30 November 2010; compare and contrast Tipp 24 AG v. Germany (dec.), no. 21252/09, § 26, 27 November 2012).

  [9] Olbertz v. Germany (dec.), no. 37592/97, ECHR 1999-V, and Döring v. Germany (dec.), no. 37595/97, ECHR 1999-VIII.

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 37138/14

  Ungarns Anti-Terror-Gesetz ist menschenrechtswidrig
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14556/89

  PAPAMICHALOPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91
• EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 25851/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79
• EGMR, 30.08.2007 - 44302/02

  J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LTD ET J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LAND LTD c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13

  KIRÁLY AND DÖMÖTÖR v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 25.05.1999 - 37592/97

  Rechtmäßigkeit der Rücknahme der Bestellung zum Steuerberater; Voraussetzungen …
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 11765/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 38645/97

  POLACEK and POLACKOVA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 54927/15

  MENDREI v. HUNGARY
• EKMR, 21.10.1998 - 33298/96

  PINNACLE MEAT PROCESSORS COMPANY AND 8 OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 37660/97

  DENIMARK LIMITED AND 11 OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.11.2002 - 33176/96

  MOSTEANU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 25536/14

  SKORJANEC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 65681/13

  VÉKONY v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 08.09.2015 - 23265/13

  LAURUS INVEST HUNGARY KFT AND CONTINENTAL HOLDING CORPORATION v. HUNGARY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EuGH, 10.07.2025 - C-254/23

  INTERZERO u. a. - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Niederlassungsfreiheit und …

  Im Kontext einer Gesetzesänderung verlangt die Wahrung der Grundrechte der von ihr betroffenen Wirtschaftsteilnehmer allerdings auch, dass der nationale Gesetzgeber geeignete Maßnahmen ergreift, um diese Wirtschaftsteilnehmer vor Maßnahmen zu schützen, mit denen ihnen eine in Anbetracht ihrer besonderen Situation übermäßige Belastung auferlegt wird (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 13. Januar 2015, Vékony/Ungarn, CE:ECHR:2015:0113JUD006568113, §§ 34 und 35; EGMR, 16. Oktober 2018, Könyv-Tár Kft u. a./Ungarn, CE:ECHR:2018:1016JUD002162313, §§ 48 und 50).