Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VASILEVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VASILEVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 22653/08
• EGMR, 10.05.2017 - 22653/08

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 57404/08

  LAVRECHOV v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 22653/08

  It further accepts that it pursued the legitimate aim of fighting and preventing crime, which undoubtedly falls within the general interest as envisaged in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Lavrechov v. the Czech Republic, no. 57404/08, § 46, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 14818/02

  STOJKOVIC v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 22653/08

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see Stojkovic v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 14818/02, § 55, 8 November 2007).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 22653/08

  In other words, the Court must determine whether a balance was struck between the demands of the general interest and the interest of the individual or individuals concerned (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 26, § 69, and p. 28, § 73, and James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 34, § 50).

• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 22653/08

  In doing so, it leaves the State a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the objective of the law in question (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 52, Series A no. 108).
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

  YILDIRIM contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 22653/08

  In addition, it must be ascertained whether the procedure in the domestic legal system afforded the applicant, in the light of the severity of the measure to which he was liable, an adequate opportunity to put his case to the responsible authorities, pleading, as the case might be, illegality or arbitrary and unreasonable conduct (see Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 26.02.2013 - 50254/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 22653/08

  More specifically, the only remedies which Article 35 § 1 of the Convention requires to be exhausted are those that relate to the breaches alleged and which are, at the same time, available and sufficient (see Paksas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 34932/04, § 75, ECHR 2011 (extracts), and Papadakis v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 50254/07, § 101, 26 February 2013).
• EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 32715/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 22653/08

  Lastly, the Government invoked the case of Jusufoski (see Jusufoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 32715/04, 23 August 2009).
• EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 51/06

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 22653/08

  The Government submitted an excerpt from a decision of the Supreme Court (Гзз. Бр. 51/06 of 31 January 2007) in which the court held that the seller of a car was responsible to the buyer for the legal defect (правен недостаток) of the car, irrespective of whether the seller had been aware of that legal defect at the time of the sale contract.
• EGMR, 13.11.2019 - 16225/08

  ANDONOSKI AGAINST NORTH MACEDONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 22653/08

  It will refer to the Government's argument that the applicant could have pursued civil claims against Mr I.A. and the company M. in the context of the proportionality of the measure (see paragraphs 59 and 60 below; see also Andonoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 16225/08, § 23, 17 September 2015).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 58045/11

  S.C. SERVICE BENZ COM S.R.L. c. ROUMANIE et 1 autre affaire

  De fait, la Cour constate que, en application des paragraphes 1 k) et 2 b) de l'article 220 du CPF, lus de manière combinée, la confiscation du moyen de transport utilisé pour le transport illégal d'une marchandise soumise au droit d'accise était obligatoire (voir, mutatis mutandis, Andonoski, précité, § 37, et Vasilevski c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine, no 22653/08, § 57, 28 avril 2016 ; voir aussi, a contrario, Waldemar Nowakowski précité, § 51).