Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GHIGO v. MALTA

  Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of P1-1 Damage - question reserved Costs and expenses award - domestic and Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 31122/05
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 31122/05

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 31122/05

  Finding it natural that the margin of appreciation available to the legislature in implementing social and economic policies should be a wide one, the Court has on many occasions declared that it will respect the legislature's judgment as to what is in the "public" or "general" interest unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 49, ECHR 1999-V, and, mutatis mutandis, Broniowski, cited above, § 149).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 31122/05

  The purpose of this rule is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 31122/05

  Article 35 § 1 is based on the assumption, reflected in Article 13 (with which it has a close affinity), that there is an effective domestic remedy available in respect of the alleged breach of an individual's Convention rights (Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI).

 
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 31122/05

  The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99

  BALOGH v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 31122/05

  Nevertheless, the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies only requires that an applicant make normal use of remedies which are effective, sufficient and accessible in respect of his Convention grievances (Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004).
• EGMR, 24.10.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 31122/05

  The Court first recalls that it is not empowered under the Convention to direct the Maltese State to annul or revoke the requisition order (see, mutatis mutandis, Sannino v. Italy, no. 30961/03, § 65, 27 April 2006, Findlay v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 February 1997, Reports 1997-I, p. 284, § 88, and Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium (former Article 50), judgment of 24 October 1983, Series A no. 68, pp.
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10522/83

  Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 31122/05

  In each case involving an alleged violation of that Article the Court must therefore ascertain whether by reason of the State's interference the person concerned had to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden (see James and Others, cited above, p. 27, § 50; Mellacher and Others v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169, p. 34, § 48; Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy, judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 315-B, p. 26, § 33).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

  SPADEA ET SCALABRINO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 31122/05

  In each case involving an alleged violation of that Article the Court must therefore ascertain whether by reason of the State's interference the person concerned had to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden (see James and Others, cited above, p. 27, § 50; Mellacher and Others v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169, p. 34, § 48; Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy, judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 315-B, p. 26, § 33).

• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 31454/12

  MONTANARO GAUCI AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  This was in line with the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in similar circumstances, in the cases of Ghigo v. Malta (no. 31122/05, 26 September 2006) and Fleri Soler and Camilleri v. Malta (no. 35349/05, ECHR 2006-X).

  When including non-pecuniary damage, such awards had amounted to, for example, EUR 1, 168 and EUR 1, 400 respectively, in Edwards v. Malta (just satisfaction), no. 17647/04, § 22, 24, and 37, 17 July 2008), and Ghigo v. Malta (just satisfaction), no. 31122/05, §§ 19, 21 and 32, 17 July 2008).

  As to the applicable rent, the Court takes note of the efforts made by the Government to make changes to the legislation (in the form, inter alia, of the 2010 amendments) in the wake of the execution phase before the Committee of Ministers in connection with a series of judgments delivered against Malta concerning this subject matter (see Ghigo v. Malta, no. 31122/05, 26 September 2006; Edwards v. Malta, no. 17647/04, 24 October 2006; and Fleri Soler and Camilleri, cited above).

• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 30255/09

  BITTÓ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  In the cases of Edwards (cited above, § 78) and Ghigo v. Malta (no. 31122/05, § 69, 26 September 2006), the Court found that a disproportionate and excessive burden had been imposed on the applicants who had been requested to bear most of the social and financial costs of supplying housing accommodation to other individuals.
• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 37926/05

  R & L, S.R.O. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Indeed, the protection provided by the Convention in the previous cases was never made dependent on the way applicants had acquired their landlords" rights (see Edwards v. Malta, no. 17647/04, 24 October 2006; Ghigo v. Malta, no. 31122/05, 26 September 2006; Fleri Soler and Camilleri v. Malta, no. 35349/05, 26 September 2006; Lo Tufo v. Italy, no. 64663/01, 21 April 2005, ECHR 2005-III; Mellacher v. Austria, 19 December 1992, Series A 169).
• EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 66/12

  WYSZYNSKI v. POLAND

  The measure in question amounted to a control of the use of property to be examined under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and with reference to the case-law concerning similar context (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 46, ECHR 1999-V; Ghigo v. Malta, no. 31122/05, § 50, 26 September 2006; and Kasmi v. Albania, no. 1175/06, § 72, 23 June 2020).
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 18429/02

  VINATORU c. ROUMANIE

  Rappelant également que la Convention a pour but de sauvegarder des droits «concrets et effectifs», la Cour doit en l'espèce examiner le maintien par les autorités d'un juste équilibre entre les intérêts en jeu en prenant en compte l'existence d'un certain rapport entre le niveau du loyer imposé au propriétaire et celui pratiqué sur le marché immobilier (Urbárska Obec Trencianske Biskupice c. Slovaquie, no 74258/01, §§ 142-144, CEDH 2007-... (extraits)), ainsi que la mesure dans laquelle le système en cause comprenait des restrictions supplémentaires à la charge du propriétaire ou, au contraire, des garanties permettant à ce dernier d'atténuer l'impact de la restriction dans la jouissance de son bien (Hutten-Czapska, précité, §§ 168 et 224, Ghigo c. Malte, no 31122/05, §§ 64 à 69, 26 septembre 2006, et Mellacher et autres c. Autriche, 19 décembre 1989, §§ 53 et 55-57, série A no 169).