Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DEPALLE v. FRANCE

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
  No violation of P1-1 (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DEPALLE c. FRANCE

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
  Non-violation de P1-1 (französisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Depalle v. France and Brosset Triboulet and others v. France

  [11.02.2009]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 34044/02
• EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 34044/02
• EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02, 34078/02

Wird zitiert von ... (89)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  Chassagnou u.a. ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02

  In determining whether this requirement is met, the Court recognises that the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 75, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02

  Since the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are "practical and effective", it has to be ascertained whether the situation amounted to a de facto expropriation (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 76, ECHR 1999-VII, and Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 63 and 69-74, Series A no. 52).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02

  The Court reiterates that environmental conservation, which in today's society is an increasingly important consideration (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 48, Series A no. 192), has become a cause whose defence arouses the constant and sustained interest of the public, and consequently the public authorities.

• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 62543/00

  GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02

  The Court has, moreover, often reiterated that regional planning and environmental conservation policies, where the community's general interest is pre-eminent, confer on the State a margin of appreciation that is greater than when exclusively civil rights are at stake (see, mutatis mutandis, Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 70, ECHR 2004-III; Alatulkkila and Others v. Finland, no. 33538/96, § 67, 28 July 2005; Valico S.r.l. v. Italy (dec.), no. 70074/01, ECHR 2006-III; and Lars and Astrid Fägerskiöld v. Sweden (dec.), no. 37664/04, 26 February 2008).
• EGMR, 26.02.2008 - 37664/04

  FÄGERSKIÖLD v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02

  The Court has, moreover, often reiterated that regional planning and environmental conservation policies, where the community's general interest is pre-eminent, confer on the State a margin of appreciation that is greater than when exclusively civil rights are at stake (see, mutatis mutandis, Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 70, ECHR 2004-III; Alatulkkila and Others v. Finland, no. 33538/96, § 67, 28 July 2005; Valico S.r.l. v. Italy (dec.), no. 70074/01, ECHR 2006-III; and Lars and Astrid Fägerskiöld v. Sweden (dec.), no. 37664/04, 26 February 2008).
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 70074/01

  VALICO S.R.L. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02

  The Court has, moreover, often reiterated that regional planning and environmental conservation policies, where the community's general interest is pre-eminent, confer on the State a margin of appreciation that is greater than when exclusively civil rights are at stake (see, mutatis mutandis, Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 70, ECHR 2004-III; Alatulkkila and Others v. Finland, no. 33538/96, § 67, 28 July 2005; Valico S.r.l. v. Italy (dec.), no. 70074/01, ECHR 2006-III; and Lars and Astrid Fägerskiöld v. Sweden (dec.), no. 37664/04, 26 February 2008).
• EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 72864/01

  GALTIERI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02

  These will depend on urban and regional planning policies, which are, by definition, evolutive, and are, par excellence, spheres in which the State intervenes, particularly through control of property in the general or public interest (see Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others, cited above, § 70, and Galtiéri v. Italy (dec.), no. 72864/01, 24 January 2006).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 31107/96

  IATRIDIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02

  In each case the issue that needs to be examined is whether the circumstances of the case, considered as a whole, conferred on the applicant title to a substantive interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 1999-II; Öneryıldız, cited above, § 124; and Hamer, cited above, § 75).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which guarantees in substance the right of property, comprises three distinct rules (see, inter alia, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98): the first, which is expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph and is of a general nature, lays down the principle of peaceful enjoyment of property.
• EGMR, 06.06.2012 - 37451/97

  AFFAIRES N.A. ET AUTRES ET 22 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2010 - 34044/02

  Generally speaking, the imprescriptibility and inalienability of public land have not prevented the Court from concluding that "possessions" within the meaning of this provision were at stake (see Öneryıldız, cited above; N.A. and Others v. Turkey, no. 37451/97, ECHR 2005-X; Tuncay v. Turkey, no. 1250/02, 12 December 2006; Köktepe v. Turkey, no. 785/03, 2 July 2008; Turgut and Others v. Turkey, no. 1411/03, 8 July 2008; and Satır v. Turkey, no. 36192/03, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 19.11.2014 - 35332/05

  ANONYMOS TOURISTIKI ETAIRIA XENODOCHEIA KRITIS AND 3 OTHER CASES AGAINST GREECE
• EGMR - 1411/03

  Turgut u. a. ./. Türkei / Köktepe ./. Türkei
• EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 1262/02

  DOGRUSÖZ AND ASLAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 1250/02

  TUNCAY v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 11841/02

  ÖZDEN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 785/03

  MAKARCZYK v. POLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• BVerfG, 23.07.2024 - 2 BvR 557/19

  Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerden gegen die Aufhebung eines Schiedsspruches sowie …

  v. Portugal, Urteil vom 11. Januar 2007, Nr. 73049/01, § 63; Depalle v. France, Urteil vom 29. März 2010, Nr. 34044/02, § 62).
• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 1828/06

  [FRE]

  The legitimacy of State policies in favour of environmental protection cannot be called into question, because the well-being and health of individuals are thereby also guaranteed and defended (see Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 84, ECHR 2010, and Brosset-Triboulet and Others v. France [GC], no. 34078/02, § 87, 29 March 2010).

  For a measure relating to the control of the use of land to be compatible with the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, it must be "lawful" (see Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 187, ECHR 2012), must pursue an aim in the "general interest", and must maintain a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see, among other authorities, Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 83, ECHR 2010, and Brosset-Triboulet and Others v. France [GC], no. 34078/02, § 86, 29 March 2010).

• EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15

  IVANOVA AND CHERKEZOV v. BULGARIA

  But in this case it is more appropriate to examine this question on the merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Depalle v. France (dec.), no. 34044/02, 29 April 2008, and Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 25446/06, 14 September 2010).

  However, the High Contracting Parties enjoy a margin of appreciation in this respect, in particular in choosing the means of enforcement and in ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement would be justified (see, as a recent authority, Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 83, ECHR 2010).

  This area is par excellence an area in which the State enforces laws to control the use of property in the public interest (see Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 87, ECHR 2010) and in which a wide margin of appreciation applies (ibid., § 84).

• EuGH, 05.05.2022 - C-83/20

  Die der Maßnahme zur Abwicklung der Banco Espírito Santo zugrundeliegende …

  Rn. 44 Zweitens ist zu der Frage, ob eine Abwicklungsmaßnahme, die im Einklang mit einer nationalen Regelung wie der im Ausgangsverfahren in Rede stehenden erlassen wurde, eine Entziehung des Eigentums im Sinne von Art. 17 Abs. 1 Satz 2 der Charta oder eine Regelung der Nutzung des Eigentums im Sinne ihres Art. 17 Abs. 1 Satz 3 darstellt, festzustellen, dass nach der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte das Vorliegen einer Entziehung des Eigentums nicht nur voraussetzt, dass es eine Wegnahme oder eine förmliche Enteignung gab; es muss auch geprüft werden, ob der streitige Sachverhalt einer de-facto-Enteignung gleichkam (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 28. Juli 1999, 1mmobiliare Saffi/Italien, CE:ECHR:1999:0728JUD002277493, § 46; EGMR, 29. März 2010, Depalle/Frankreich, CE:ECHR:2010:0329JUD003404402, § 78).
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 14717/04

  [ENG]

  Thus the balance to be maintained between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of fundamental rights is upset if the person concerned has had to bear a "disproportionate burden" (see, among many other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69-74, Series A no. 52; The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, 9 December 1994, §§ 70-71, Series A no. 301-A; Brumarescu v. Romania, no. 28342/95, § 78, ECHR 1999-VII; Moskal, cited above, § 52; and Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 83, ECHR 2010-..).

  When applying the above principles to individual cases, the Court has examined whether the circumstances of the case, considered as a whole, conferred on the applicants title to a substantive interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for instance, Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Rum Ortodoks Kilisesi Vakfi v. Turkey, nos. 37639/03, 37655/03, 26736/04 and 42670/04, § 41, 3 March 2009; Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 62, ECHR 2010-..; and Plalam S.P.A. v. Italy (merits), no. 16021/02, § 37, 18 May 2010).

• EGMR, 25.08.2026 - 30915/23

  ALEKSIEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  It is true that in several cases concerning the occupation of land not belonging to the applicants the Court has held that the applicants had a proprietary interest in homes built on that land that was sufficiently recognised at domestic level to constitute a "possession" (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 127-29, ECHR 2004-XII, Hamer v. Belgium, no. 21861/03, § 76, ECHR 2007-V (extracts); and Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, §§ 65-68, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 08.11.2018 - 78005/11

  MALLIAKOU AND OTHERS v. GREECE

  In determining whether this requirement is met, the Court recognises that the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 75, ECHR 1999-III; Schneider v. Luxembourg, no. 2113/04, § 45, 10 July 2007; and Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 83, ECHR 2010).

  The Court therefore concludes that the applicants always knew that the decisions authorising exploitation of the quarry were precarious and revocable, and that they disregarded the terms under which the exploitation licence was granted (compare Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 86, ECHR 2010).

• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

  BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY

  v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 63, ECHR 2007-I; Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 62, ECHR 2010; Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 171, ECHR 2012; Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, § 49, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 211, ECHR 2015).
• EuGH, 04.10.2024 - C-535/22

  Aeris Invest/ Kommission und CRU - Rechtsmittel - Wirtschafts- und …

  Rn. 215 Nach der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs und des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte setzt das Vorliegen einer Entziehung des Eigentums nicht nur voraus, dass es eine Wegnahme oder eine förmliche Enteignung gab; es muss auch geprüft werden, ob der streitige Sachverhalt einer De-facto-Enteignung gleichkam (Urteil des Gerichtshofs vom 5. Mai 2022, BPC Lux 2 u. a., C-83/20, EU:C:2022:346, Rn. 44, sowie EGMR, 28. Juli 1999, 1mmobiliare Saffi/Italien, CE:ECHR:1999:0728JUD002277493, § 46, und EGMR, 29. März 2010, Depalle/Frankreich, CE:ECHR:2010:0329JUD003404402, § 78).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 19.04.2012 - C-416/10

  Križan u.a. - Umwelt - Errichtung einer Abfalldeponie - …

  {FN:82} - Urteile vom 7. Februar 1985, ADBHU (240/83, Slg. 1985, 531, Randnr. 13), sowie vom 9. März 2010, ERG u. a. (C-379/08 und C-380/08, Slg. 2010, I-2007, Randnr. 81), und die Urteile des EGMR vom 29. März 2010, Depalle/Frankreich (Beschwerde-Nr. 34044/02, § 81 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung), Pine Valley Developments Ltd u. a./Irland (zitiert in Fn. 80, § 57), sowie vom 22. November 2011, Curmi/Malta (Beschwerde-Nr. 2243/10, § 44).
• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 46931/12

  APAP BOLOGNA v. MALTA
• EGMR, 02.05.2024 - 35271/19

  THE J. PAUL GETTY TRUST AND OTHERS v. ITALY
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32794/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 48921/13

  CAKAREVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 18.11.2025 - 53002/21

  ISKRA DOO BEOGRAD v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 846/16

  ZELENCHUK AND TSYTSYURA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 36480/07

  LEKIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 38359/13

  DZINIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  SANDU AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA and 7 other applications
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 37265/10

  LOHUIS AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 23.10.2025 - 16803/21

  AYALA FLORES v. ITALY
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 38770/17

  MIFSUD AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 25545/14

  TUMELIS AND TUMELIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 50811/10

  BARCZA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 03.09.2026 - 11227/24

  GARABIOL c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 20.05.2025 - 23550/22

  BILGIN ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 23079/11

  AKTIVA DOO v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 47384/07

  AsDAC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 22853/15

  MERKANTIL CAR ZRT. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 50101/12

  BIKIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 33949/05
• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 77504/13

  RADIO ATHINA MONOPROSOPI ETAIRIA PERIORISMENIS EFTHYNIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 43987/11

  VASILJEVIC v. SERBIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 10640/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 70520/10

  BEINAROVIC AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 16.12.2025 - 16627/21

  SCHEFFER v. SLOVAKIA and 47 other applications
• EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 35780/18

  LONGO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 51391/19

  WIEGANDOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 13290/11

  SVIT ROZVAG, TOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 06.02.2018 - 36184/13

  KRISTIANA LTD. v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 43492/11

  BOLJEVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 40581/12

  MATAS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 25194/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 46154/11

  VALLE PIERIMPIÈ SOCIETÀ AGRICOLA S.P.A c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 13703/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 72858/13

  KRAYEVA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 04.08.2020 - 44817/18

  KAMINSKAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 54700/12

  MKHCHYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 73105/12

  BÄ'RZI?...S AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 75757/14

  BOGNÁR v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 2727/21

  ÖZSOY ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 15.11.2022 - 27269/09

  ARNAVUTKÖY GREEK ORTHODOX TAKSIARHIS CHURCH FOUNDATION v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 04.03.2021 - 2371/11

  BORISOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 16430/13

  REALE c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 12.11.2019 - 44457/11

  SA BIO D'ARDENNES c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 20984/08

  VERGA ET CANNARELLA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 25.06.2015 - 24756/10

  COUTURON c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.05.2026 - 11251/24
• EGMR, 03.03.2026 - 2381/22

  SAARIVUOMA SAMEBY v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 4558/20

  BCR BANCA PENTRU LOCUINÈšE S.A. v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 13.09.2022 - 78909/17

  UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX PARISH OF THE HOLY TRINITY CHURCH IN NOGINSK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.04.2021 - 59026/14

  PORÁZIK v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 64661/11

  SHYNKARENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 26635/12

  ALEKSANDRIJA A DOOEL v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 57964/08

  KOTUMANOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 27803/16

  PIRAS v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 10.02.2026 - 70972/16

  CONSTANDA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 67322/14

  S?�OMIA?ƒSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 58179/18

  MILASAUSKIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 64249/17

  CEBELIS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 22035/10

  TEKIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 13224/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 10307/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR - 55519/16 (anhängig)

  FLOREA v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR - 12040/22 (anhängig)

  PENELOPE SPV S.R.L. v. ITALY
• EGMR - 47841/20 (anhängig)

  DE JESUS AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR - 33449/25 (anhängig)

  BEGOVIĆ v. SERBIA
• EGMR - 25992/16 (anhängig)

  ATIKYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR - 26153/25 (anhängig)

  SYNOT GASTRO SLOVAKIA S.R.O., ODŠTĚPNÝ ZÁVOD v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 17.03.2026 - 47565/22

  VENDRAME AND OTHERS v. ITALY
• EGMR, 16.11.2023 - 969/22

  RACHEWSKAYA ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.09.2023 - 35983/22

  FRANCE.COM INC. c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 43756/12

  CHILIMONIUK AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 39942/13

  CHORBOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 12.12.2024 - 83215/17

  MARAITE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 21.03.2023 - 1574/12

  THE CHIEF RABBINATE OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY IN IZMIR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 38353/05

  DIACONESCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 07.05.2025 - 63686/11

  BÜRGSTALLER & PARTNER S.R.L. v. ITALY
• EGMR, 04.01.2012 - 14819/08

  SCI LA ROSERAIE c. FRANCE