Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAARIVUOMA SAMI VILLAGE v. NORWAY

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SAARIVUOMA SAMEBY v. NORWAY

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  Chassagnou u.a. ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2026 - 2381/22

  Nonetheless, as it is clear that the applicant community's rights in respect of the contested areas were ultimately acknowledged and restored by virtue of the Supreme Court's judgment of 30 June 2021 and that the exclusion of the applicant community from the contested areas was brought to an end by that judgment, the Court finds that the situation complained of did not amount to a "deprivation" of its private-law rights, but rather constituted "control of the use" of its property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (compare Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 74, ECHR 1999-III; Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 46, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02

  Depalle ./. Frankreich - Brosset Triboulet u. a. ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2026 - 2381/22

  Rn. 68 In this connection, the Court reiterates that where a measure controlling the use of property is in issue, the lack of compensation is a factor to be taken into consideration in determining whether a fair balance has been achieved but is not of itself sufficient to constitute a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 91, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 75909/01

  Sud Fondi S.r.l. u.a. ./. Italien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2026 - 2381/22

  Rn. 59 As to the notion of "foreseeability", its scope depends to a considerable degree on the content of the instrument in issue, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see, mutatis mutandis, Sud Fondi S.r.l. and Others v. Italy, no. 75909/01, § 109, 20 January 2009).

• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 28470/12

  NIT S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2026 - 2381/22

  Rn. 55 The Court recalls that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention contains three distinct rules that may apply to such interferences (see, for example, among many authorities, NIT S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 28470/12, § 245, 5 April 2022).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2026 - 2381/22

  Nonetheless, as it is clear that the applicant community's rights in respect of the contested areas were ultimately acknowledged and restored by virtue of the Supreme Court's judgment of 30 June 2021 and that the exclusion of the applicant community from the contested areas was brought to an end by that judgment, the Court finds that the situation complained of did not amount to a "deprivation" of its private-law rights, but rather constituted "control of the use" of its property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (compare Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 74, ECHR 1999-III; Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 46, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 02.05.2024 - 35271/19

  THE J. PAUL GETTY TRUST AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2026 - 2381/22

  Rn. 64 While the above interpretation provided by the Supreme Court seems to be rather unique in the Norwegian legal system, the Court reiterates that the requirement of foreseeability cannot be read as outlawing the gradual clarification of the rules through judicial interpretation from case to case, provided that the resultant development remains consistent with the essence of the provision in question and could reasonably be foreseen (see The J. Paul Getty Trust and Others v. Italy, no. 35271/19, § 297, 2 May 2024, and Kopytok v. Russia, no. 48812/09, § 34, 15 January 2019).
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 49636/14

  BAKIRDZI AND E.C. v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2026 - 2381/22

  In the light of that judgment, the Court does not consider that the application discloses any appearance of the applicant community having been treated differently from a person or a group in a relevantly similar position, either on grounds of nationality or of association with a national minority (see Bakirdzi and E.C. v. Hungary, nos. 49636/14 and 65678/14, §§ 49 and 50, 10 November 2022).
• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 48812/09

  KOPYTOK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2026 - 2381/22

  Rn. 64 While the above interpretation provided by the Supreme Court seems to be rather unique in the Norwegian legal system, the Court reiterates that the requirement of foreseeability cannot be read as outlawing the gradual clarification of the rules through judicial interpretation from case to case, provided that the resultant development remains consistent with the essence of the provision in question and could reasonably be foreseen (see The J. Paul Getty Trust and Others v. Italy, no. 35271/19, § 297, 2 May 2024, and Kopytok v. Russia, no. 48812/09, § 34, 15 January 2019).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• VG Oldenburg, 01.08.2022 - 12 B 1142/22

  Irak: Dublin Polen: Ab 1.8.22 Dublin-Überstellung akzeptiert; Eilbeschluss …

  Davon, dass das Asyl- und Aufnahmesystem Polens nicht mit systemischen Mängeln behaftet ist, gehen aktuell auch eine Vielzahl anderer Verwaltungsgerichte aus (vgl. u.a. VG Potsdam, Beschluss vom 18. März 2022 - VG 1 L 124/22.A - VG Wiesbaden, Urteil vom 6. Mai 2022 - 3 K 1656/18.WI.A - VG Dresden, Beschluss vom 27. Juni 2022 - 3 L 397/22.A - VG München, Beschluss vom 27. Mai 2022 - M 30 S 22.50276 - VG Hannover, Beschluss vom 15. Juni 2022 - 1 2 B 2381/22 - VG Lüneburg, Beschluss vom 3. Mai 2022 - 5 B 31/22 - VG Regensburg, Beschluss vom 8. Juni 2022 - RO 14 E 22.50156 -, jew. juris).