Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MALIK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits (ratione materiae) No violation of P1-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Malik v. the United Kingdom

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 23780/08

  The Court reiterates at the outset that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies only to a person's existing possessions; it does not guarantee the right to acquire possessions (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 50, Series A no. 31; and Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

  SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 23780/08

  The Court reiterates at the outset that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies only to a person's existing possessions; it does not guarantee the right to acquire possessions (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 50, Series A no. 31; and Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.06.1986 - 8543/79

  VAN MARLE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 23780/08

  He pointed out that the accountant's licence to practise in Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101, and the advocate's licence in Wendenburg were unlikely to have been transferable and yet both cases were found to fall within the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

 
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 23780/08

  In cases concerning the grants of licences or permits to carry out a business, the Court has indicated that the revocation or withdrawal of a permit or licence interfered with the applicants" right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, including the economic interests connected with the underlying business (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 40, Series A no. 192, in respect of an exploitation permit for a gravel pit; and mutatis mutandis, Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, § 53, Series A no. 159, concerning a licence to serve alcoholic beverages in a restaurant.
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84

  TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 23780/08

  In cases concerning the grants of licences or permits to carry out a business, the Court has indicated that the revocation or withdrawal of a permit or licence interfered with the applicants" right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, including the economic interests connected with the underlying business (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 40, Series A no. 192, in respect of an exploitation permit for a gravel pit; and mutatis mutandis, Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, § 53, Series A no. 159, concerning a licence to serve alcoholic beverages in a restaurant.
• EGMR, 06.02.2003 - 71630/01

  A. W. und andere gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 23780/08

  However, he argued that this restriction was subject to the concept of legitimate expectation of receiving future possessions as income, relying on the Court's decision in Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II (extracts) to support his argument.

• EuGH, 03.09.2015 - C-398/13

  Der Gerichtshof bestätigt die Gültigkeit der Verordnung über den Handel mit …

  Nach der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte, u. a. im Urteil Malik/Vereinigtes Königreich (EGMR, Nr. 23780/08, 13. März 2012), stellten die mit dem Unternehmen verbundenen wirtschaftlichen Interessen aber "Eigentum" im Sinne von Art. 1 des Protokolls Nr. 1 zur EMRK dar und unterfielen daher dem Schutz des Eigentumsrechts.
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 21623/13

  KÖNYV-TÁR KFT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  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).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 23.12.2015 - C-477/14

  Pillbox 38 - Rechtsangleichung - Art. 20 der Richtlinie 2014/40/EU - Herstellung, …

  112 - EGMR, Urteile vom 13. Juni 1979, Marckx/Belgien (…ECLI:CE:ECHR:1979:0613JUD000683374, Rn. 50), vom 11. Januar 2007, Anheuser-Busch/Portugal (…ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0111JUD007304901, Rn. 64), und vom 13. März 2012, Malik/Vereinigtes Königreich (ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0313JUD002378008, Rn. 93).

 
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 19.03.2015 - C-398/13

  Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami u.a. / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Verordnung (EU) Nr. …

  44 - EGMR, Urteile vom 13. Juni 1979, Marckx/Belgien (…Beschwerde-Nr. 6833/74, Serie A, Nr. 31, Rn. 50), vom 11. Januar 2007, Anheuser-Busch/Portugal (…Beschwerde-Nr. 73049/01, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 2007-I, Rn. 64), und vom 13. März 2012, Malik/Vereinigtes Königreich (Beschwerde-Nr. 23780/08, Rn. 93).
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 43768/17

  HAN AARTS B.V. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  On the basis of an elaborate reasoning referring to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and with reference to the Court's established case-law under this provision (Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101; Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159; Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192; Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, 13 March 2012; Vékony v. Hungary, no. 65681/13, 13 January 2015; and Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, 21 April 2016), the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the case did not concern a de facto deprivation of possessions but should rather be regarded as a form of control over the use of property, since the fur farmers remained in possession of their assets and could continue to operate in a profitable manner during the transitional period.

  The Court would first confirm its well-established case-law that any complaint of a loss of "goodwill" in the form of future income falls outside the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for instance, Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, §§ 88-93, 13 March 2012, and Tipp 24 AG v. Germany (dec.), no. 21252/09, §§ 25-26 with further references, 27 November 2012) and it has found no reasons in the present case to reach a different finding.

• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 21252/09

  Deutscher Glücksspielstaatsvertrag verstößt nicht gegen Europäische …

  Der Gerichtshof hat seine Rechtsprechung zu Artikel 1 Protokoll Nr. 1 im Hinblick auf berufliche Tätigkeiten kürzlich in der Rechtssache Malik ./. das Vereinigte Königreich (Individualbeschwerde Nr. 23780/08, Rdnrn. 88-89 (sic), 13. März 2012) zusammengefasst:.
• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 12096/14

  ROLA v. SLOVENIA

  Where, as a consequence of the restrictions, the applicant's income and the value of his clientele and, more generally, his business, had fallen, the Court held that there had been an interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, § 90, 13 March 2012).
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 65681/13

  VÉKONY v. HUNGARY

  The Court finds that the cancellation and non-renewal of the applicant's tobacco licence constituted a measure of control of the use of property, which falls to be considered under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (cf. Tre Traktörer, cited above, § 55; Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova, no. 21151/04, § 65, ECHR 2008; see also Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, §§ 88-89, 13 March 2012).
• EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 75414/10

  KURBAN v. TURKEY

  v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 64, ECHR 2007-I; and Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, § 93, 13 March 2012).
• EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 39107/18

  MICKOVSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  The goodwill he had established was relevant to the decision of clients to choose his services (see, mutatis mutandis, Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, § 99, 13 March 2012, and O'Sullivan McCarthy Mussel Development Ltd v. Ireland, no. 44460/16, § 89, 7 June 2018, in which the Court has also found that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applied where there was a temporary prohibition on a permit connected to the usual conduct of a business).
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 67390/10

  MARCAN v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 15553/15

  S.C. ZORINA INTERNATIONAL S.R.L. v. ROMANIA