Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OKLESEN AND POKOPALISKO POGREBNE STORITVE LEOPOLD OKLESEN S.P. v. SLOVENIA

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

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

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 35264/04

  The Court notes that in this particular situation, where the owner and the professional entity are so closely connected, the first applicant can be considered to be a person directly effected by the acts at issue (see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51) and can therefore claim to be a victim of the violation alleged in the present case.
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

  Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 35264/04

  Furthermore, the concept of "possessions" is not limited to "existing possessions" but may also cover assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he has at least a reasonable and "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right (see, for example, Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 26.06.1986 - 8543/79

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 35264/04

  The applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 therefore extends also to professional practices and their clientele, as these are entities of a certain worth that have in many respects the nature of private rights, and thus constitute assets (see among many authorities, Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, § 41, Series A no. 101, and Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 81, 24 May 2005).

• EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 61302/00

  BUZESCU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 35264/04

  The applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 therefore extends also to professional practices and their clientele, as these are entities of a certain worth that have in many respects the nature of private rights, and thus constitute assets (see among many authorities, Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, § 41, Series A no. 101, and Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 81, 24 May 2005).
• VK Rheinland-Pfalz, 14.05.2002 - 11/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 35264/04

  On 31 January 2002 the 2001 Decree was amended ("the 2002 Amendment", Official Gazette 11/02), to include a provision stating that "public utilities.
• UN-Ausschuß für Menschenrechte, 04.07.1994 - 15/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 35264/04

  The relevant provisions of the Constitutional Court Act (Zakon o ustavnem sodiscu, Official Gazette no. 15/94), which concern the review of constitutionality and legality, were at the relevant time as follows:.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 21623/13

  KÖNYV-TÁR KFT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  The applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 extends, among others, to professional practices, their clientele and their goodwill, as these are entities of a certain worth that have in many respects the nature of private rights, and thus constitute assets, being possessions within the meaning of the first sentence of this provision (see Van Marle and Others, cited above, § 41; Döring v. Germany (dec.), no. 37595/97, ECHR 1999-VIII; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II; Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 81, 24 May 2005; and Oklešen and Pokopališko Pogrebne Storitve Leopold Oklešen S.P. v. Slovenia, no. 35264/04, § 54, 30 November 2010; compare and contrast Tipp 24 AG v. Germany (dec.), no. 21252/09, § 26, 27 November 2012).

  "The applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1... extends also to professional practices and their clientele, as these are entities of a certain worth that have in many respects the nature of private rights, and thus constitute assets (see among many authorities, Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, § 41, Series A no. 101, and Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 81, 24 May 2005)." (Oklešen and Pokopališko Pogrebne Storitve Leopold Oklešen S.P. v. Slovenia, no. 35264/04, § 54, 30 November 2010).

  [15] Oklešen and Pokopališko Pogrebne Storitve Leopold Oklešen S.P. v. Slovenia, no. 35264/04, § 54, 30 November 2010.

• EGMR, 23.05.2019 - 17257/13

  SINE TSAGGARAKIS A.E.E. c. GRÈCE

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà affirmé, dans sa jurisprudence relative à l'article 1 du Protocole no 1, que la clientèle, revêtant à beaucoup d'égards le caractère d'un droit privé, s'analysait en une valeur patrimoniale et donc en un bien (Van Marle et autres c. PaysBas, 26 juin 1986, série A no 101, § 41 ; Döring c. Allemagne (déc.), no. 37595/97, CEDH 1999-VIII; Wendenburg et autres c. Allemagne (déc.), no 71630/01, CEDH 2003-II; Buzescu c. Roumanie, no. 61302/00, § 81, 24 mai 2005; Oklešen et Pokopališko Pogrebne Storitve Leopold Oklešen S.P. c. Slovénie, no. 35264/04, § 54, 30 novembre 2010 et KönyvTár Kft et autres c. Hongrie, no 21623/13, §§ 31-32, 16 octobre 2018).
• EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 40559/12

  TILOCCA v. CROATIA

  The Court has already held that where an individual and a professional entity are so closely connected, such an individual applicant could be considered to be directly affected by the measures taken in respect of such an entity (see Oklešen and Pokopališko Pogrebne Storitve Leopold Oklešen S.P. v. Slovenia, no. 35264/04, § 40, 30 November 2010).

• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 8144/07

  ELISEEV AND RUSKI ELITNI KLUB v. SERBIA

  In the present case, this "close connection" does not exist, given that the first applicant was just one of the founders of the applicant organisation and was neither a representative nor the director of the latter at the relevant time (contrast, inter alia, Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, 27 June 2000; Nosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30877/02, 25 October 2005; and Oklešen and Pokopališko Pogrebne Storitve Leopold Oklešen S.P. v. Slovenia, no. 35264/04, § 40, 30 November 2010).
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 41421/06

  KIRILLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  En outre, la Cour relève que les patrimoines des requérants et de la société ne se confondent pas, de sorte que les premiers ne sont pas copropriétaires des biens de la seconde et ne sont responsables des dettes et obligations de la société que dans la limite de leurs apports (paragraphe 33 ci-dessus) (voir, a contrario, Oklešen et Pokopališko Pogrebne Storitve Leopold Oklešen S.P. c. Slovénie, no 35264/04, 30 novembre 2010).
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 20952/21

  A.T. v. SLOVENIA

  The Court further observes that the applicant specifically complained only about the length of the constitutional review proceedings before the Constitutional Court, that is the proceedings which concerned an abstract review of legislation and could be initiated by the Constitutional Court following a petition lodged by an individual, who must demonstrate a legal interest (see, in so far as relevant, Oklešen and Pokopališko Pogrebne Storitve Leopold Oklešen S.P. v. Slovenia, no. 35264/04, § 18, 30 November 2010).