Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ENZI v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 26794/95

  SCHERTLER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 29268/95

  The Government, referring to Application no. 26794/95, Dec.

  Moreover, Article 6 does not apply to proceedings for a building permit if such a permit is not allowed under the zoning plan in force (No. 10471/83, Dec. 9.12.85, D.R. 45 p. 113; No. 26085/95, Dec. 28.2.96 unpublished; No. 26794/95, Dec. 4.9.96, unpublished).

  The Court notes that the Austrian Government, in their observations, referred to Application No. 26794/95 (Schertler v. Austria, Dec. 4.9.1996), and finds that the facts and legal issues involved in that case and the present application are essentially the same.

  In its decision in Application No. 26794/95 the European Commission of Human Rights found that there was no genuine and serious dispute over a right of the applicant, as he had no right to have his land partitioned contrary to the existing area zoning plan nor did he have a right to have the area zoning plan amended to change the designation of his land.

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 29268/95

  The partition of land constitutes, in the light of the Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden case (judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, pp. 29-30, §§ 79-83), a measure which is exclusively in the public-law sphere and is not aimed at the determination of any civil rights of the property owners affected by it.
• EGMR, 23.10.1985 - 8848/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 29268/95

  Article 6 § 1 only applies if the right is civil in character (see the Benthem v. the Netherlands judgment of 23 October 1985, Series A no. 97, p. 14, § 32).

• EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

  ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 29268/95

  The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not being sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see the Allan Jacobson v. Sweden judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A no. 163, p. 19, §§ 66-67, and the Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 327-A, p. 17, § 44).
• EGMR, 25.11.1994 - 12884/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 29268/95

  The Court recalls that Article 6 applies to proceedings concerning the grant of a building permit (see the Ortenberg v. Austria judgment of 25 November 1994, Series A no. 295-B, pp. 48-49, § 28), exemptions from building prohibitions (see the Skärby v. Sweden judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 180-B, p. 36, §§ 27 et seq.) or an order to demolish an unlawfully erected building (see the Bryan v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-A, p. 14, § 31).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 29268/95

  The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not being sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see the Allan Jacobson v. Sweden judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A no. 163, p. 19, §§ 66-67, and the Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 327-A, p. 17, § 44).
• EGMR, 27.11.1991 - 12565/86

  OERLEMANS c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 29268/95

  The applicability of Article 6 depends on whether there was a dispute over "rights and obligations" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law and, if so, whether this "right" was of a "civil" character within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see the Oerlemans v. the Netherlands judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A no. 219, pp. 20-21, §§ 45-49).
• EKMR, 09.12.1985 - 10471/83

  B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 29268/95

  Moreover, Article 6 does not apply to proceedings for a building permit if such a permit is not allowed under the zoning plan in force (No. 10471/83, Dec. 9.12.85, D.R. 45 p. 113; No. 26085/95, Dec. 28.2.96 unpublished; No. 26794/95, Dec. 4.9.96, unpublished).
• EKMR, 29.02.1988 - 11844/85

  ERIKSSON c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 29268/95

  However, Article 6 is not applicable to proceedings for the amendment of a zoning plan if the person concerned has no right under domestic law to such an amendment and, thus, no civil right is in issue (No. 11844/85, Dec. 29.2.88, D.R. 55 p. 205).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 30633/11

  LAY LAY COMPANY LIMITED v. MALTA

  However, Article 6 is not applicable to proceedings for a building permit if building is not allowed under the zoning plan in force (see Enzi v. Austria (dec.), no. 29268/95, 8 February 2000).
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 63413/00

  HAIDER v. AUSTRIA

  However, Article 6 is not applicable to proceedings for the amendment of a zoning plan if the person concerned has no right under domestic law to such an amendment and, thus, no civil right is in issue (Enzi v. Austria (dec.), no. 29268/95, 8 February 2000).
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 59879/00

  BERKMANN v. AUSTRIA

  Moreover, Article 6 does not apply to proceedings concerning a demolition order addressed to the owner of an adjacent parcel of land (see Krickl v. Austria, application no. 21752/93, Commission decision of 21 May 1997, D.R. 89, p. 5) and to proceedings for a building permit if such a permit is not allowed under the zoning plan in force (no. 10471/83, Dec. 9.12.85, D.R. 45 p. 113; no. 26085/95, Dec. 28.2.96 unreported; no. 26794/95, Dec. 4.9.96, unreported; Enzi v. Austria (Dec.), no. 29268/95, 8.2.2000, unreported).

• EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 19083/08

  CAROLINEX SP. Z O.O. v. POLAND

  However, Article 6 is not applicable to proceedings for a building permit if building is not allowed under the relevant zoning plan in force (see Enzi v. Austria (dec.), no. 29268/95, 8 February 2000).
• EGMR, 12.12.2002 - 63413/00

  HAIDER v. AUSTRIA

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 of the Convention is not applicable to proceedings for the amendment of a zoning plan if the person concerned has no right under domestic law to such an amendment and if, thus, no civil right is in issue (11844/85, Dec. 29.2.88, D.R. 55 p. 205, Enzi v. Austria, (Dec.), no. 29268/95, 8.2.2000).
• EGMR, 16.01.2001 - 32098/96

  LUDESCHER v. AUSTRIA

  Furthermore the Court has found that although Article 6 applies, in general, to proceedings concerning the grant of a building permit (Ortenberg v. Austria judgment of 25 November 1994, Series A no. 295-B, pp. 48-49, § 28), it does not apply to proceedings for a building permit if such a permit is clearly not allowed under the zoning plan in force (Enzi v. Austria, no. 29268/95, Section 3 decision 8.2.2000, with further references).