Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 41510/98, 30165/02 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AFFAIRES JASIUNIENE ET JUREVICIUS CONTRE LA LITUANIE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CASES OF JASIUNIENE AND JUREVICIUS AGAINST LITHUANIA
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 24.10.2000 - 41510/98
- EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 41510/98
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 41510/98, 30165/02
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 30165/02
JUREVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
- BVerfG, 23.06.2015 - 1 BvL 13/11
Ersatzbemessungsgrundlage im Grunderwerbsteuerrecht verfassungswidrig
- KAG Münster, 18.01.2007 - 10/06
Abschluss eines beamtenähnlichen Arbeitsvertrages; Ersetzung der Zustimmung der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 41510/98
Paid on 10/06/2003. - EGMR, 06.03.2007 - 14425/03
KALPOKAS AND KALPOKAS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 41510/98
In another case, the Court found a similar complaint to be manifestly ill-founded and, consequently, declared the application inadmissible (see the Court's decision of 06/03/2007 in the case of Kalpokas and Kalpokas against Lithuania, application No. 14425/03). - EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 62988/00
UZKURELIENE AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 41510/98
For an example in which the Court concluded that there had been no violation of Article 6 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, see the judgment in the case of Užkurėlienė and others against Lithuania (application No. 62988/00, judgment of 07/04/2005).
- EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 18013/03
IOACHIMESCU ET ION c. ROUMANIE
Dès lors, les requérants avaient « un bien'au sens de l'article 1 précité (Tacea c. Roumanie, no 746/02, § 37, 29 septembre 2005 Croitoriu c. Roumanie, no 54400/00, § 34, 9 novembre 2004, Kopecký c. Slovaquie [GC], no 44912/98, § 35, CEDH 2004-..., et JasiÅ«niene c. Lituanie, no 41510/98, § 44, 6 mars 2003). - EGMR, 22.12.2004 - 54062/00
ANDRONE c. ROUMANIE
Il invoque en ce sens les affaires Cvijetic c. Croatie (no 71549/01, § 63, 26 février 2004) et Jasiuniene c. Lituanie (no 41510/98, § 55, 6 mars 2003).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 30165/02 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
JUREVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of P1-1 as regards non-execution Violation of Art. 6-1 as regards non-execution Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ...
Wird zitiert von ... (6) Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 17686/04
VOÏKINA c. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 30165/02
Consequently, the Court considers that the complete enforcement of that judgment by the Government would fully satisfy the applicant's claim for pecuniary damage (cf. the judgment in Voykina v. Ukraine, no. 17686/04, § 23, 17 January 2006).
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 41510/98
AFFAIRES JASIUNIENE ET JUREVICIUS CONTRE LA LITUANIE
- EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 45092/07
PYRANTIENE v. LITHUANIA
Quite differently from the cases where the former owners argued their entitlement to a restoration of ownership rights to property that was nationalised during the communist regime, the present case does not concern an applicant's claim to have his property returned or for compensation for nationalised possessions (see Broniowski, cited above, § 121; JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 40, 6 March 2003; and Jurevicius v. Lithuania, no. 30165/02, § 23, 14 November 2006). - EGMR, 18.04.2017 - 2657/10
VALANCIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA
For relevant domestic practice as to the principles of restitution in Lithuania and fair compensation, see Jasiūnienė v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 22, 6 March 2003, Užkurėlienė and Others v. Lithuania, no. 62988/00, § 27, 7 April 2005, Jurevičius v. Lithuania, no. 30165/02, § 20, 14 November 2006, Igarienė and Petrauskienė v. Lithuania, no. 26892/05, §§ 24-25, 21 July 2009, Aleksa v. Lithuania, no. 27576/05, §§ 37-38, 21 July 2009, Nekvedavičius v. Lithuania, no. 1471/05, §§ 29-31, 10 December 2013, Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania, no. 17978/05, §§ 26-33, 27 May 2014, and Paukštis v. Lithuania, no. 17467/07, §§ 40-41 and 46-48, 24 November 2015).
- EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 55056/10
SIMAITIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA
For relevant domestic practice as to the principles of restitution in Lithuania and fair compensation, see Jasiūnienė v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 22, 6 March 2003; Užkurėlienė and Others v. Lithuania, no. 62988/00, § 27, 7 April 2005; Jurevičius v. Lithuania, no. 30165/02, § 20, 14 November 2006; Igarienė and Petrauskienė, cited above, §§ 24-25; Aleksa, cited above, §§ 37-38; Nekvedavičius v. Lithuania, no. 1471/05, §§ 29-31, 10 December 2013; Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania, no. 17978/05, §§ 26-33, 27 May 2014; and Paukštis v. Lithuania, no. 17467/07, §§ 40-41 and 46-48, 24 November 2015. - EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 51752/10
KAVALIAUSKAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA
For relevant domestic practice as to the principles of restitution in Lithuania and fair compensation, see Jasiūnienė v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 22, 6 March 2003; Užkurėlienė and Others v. Lithuania, no. 62988/00, § 27, 7 April 2005; Jurevičius v. Lithuania, no. 30165/02, § 20, 14 November 2006; Igarienė and Petrauskienė, cited above, §§ 24-25; Aleksa, cited above, §§ 37-38; Nekvedavičius v. Lithuania, no. 1471/05, §§ 29-31, 10 December 2013; Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania, no. 17978/05, §§ 26-33, 27 May 2014; and Paukštis v. Lithuania, no. 17467/07, §§ 40-41 and 46-48, 24 November 2015. - EGMR, 06.03.2007 - 14425/03
KALPOKAS AND KALPOKAS v. LITHUANIA
The Court recalls, however, that an applicant is not the holder of any "possession" if a claim has no basis in domestic law (see, inter alia, Jurevicius v. Lithuania, no. 30165/02, § 25, 14 November 2006; see also JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania case, no. 41510/98, §§ 40-43, 6 March 2003).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".