Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCERRI v. MALTA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SCERRI AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Zitiert selbst (18)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 42583/06

  SCHEMBRI AND OTHERS AND 5 OTHER CASES AGAINST MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  Indeed, the Court has previously found that by awarding compensation reflecting values applicable decades before and deferring the payment of such for decades until the date of the LAB decisions which do not take into account this delay, the national authorities render the compensation inadequate and consequently upset the balance between the protection of the right to property and the requirements of the general interest (see, for example, Schembri and Others v. Malta, no. 42583/06, § 45, 10 November 2009 and Frendo Randon and Others v. Malta, no. 2226/10, § 70, 22 November 2011).

  The Court notes that in similar cases (see, for example, Frendo Randon and Others v. Malta (just satisfaction), no. 2226/10, § 20, 9 July 2013 and Azzopardi v. Malta, no. 28177/12, § 66, 6 November 2014) the sum to be awarded to the applicants was calculated on the basis of the value of the land at the time of the taking, converted to the current value to offset the effects of inflation, plus simple statutory interest applied to the capital progressively adjusted.

  My first disagreement with the judgment is that, despite the above finding to which I fully subscribe, when the judgment comes to determine the amount to be awarded to the applicants in respect of pecuniary damage, for the violation of their property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, it does not take - or sufficiently take - into account, inter alia, the following two important factors for which the applicants should not be blamed and for which the only responsible party is the respondent State: (a) the passage of time between the taking of the property on 17 March 1961 (date of Governor's declaration published in the Government Gazette, which was the relevant date announcing the compulsory acquisition, see paragraphs 4 and 27 of the judgment and Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Ordinance (Chapter 88 of the Laws of Malta)) and the present time, thus almost 60 years, without the applicants receiving any compensation; and (b) the passage of time between the taking of the property on 17 March 1961 and the date on which the "notice to treat" was sent to the applicants, i.e. 14 January 2003 (see paragraph 6), thus 42 years without any legal avenue for the applicants during that time to institute court proceedings in order to claim compensation, as is clear from the decision of the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional competence (at first instance), which found for this reason a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, a decision upheld on appeal by the Constitutional Court, which also awarded the applicants EUR 7, 500 for non-pecuniary damage in respect of this violation (see, in the same vein, Frendo Randon and Others v. Malta, no. 2226/10, § 73, 22 November 2011).

  In particular, compensation is then assessed by ascertaining the market value of the expropriated property at that time, adjusted to inflation and with interest added, as was the majority's approach in the present case (see cases referred to in paragraph 87 of the judgment, namely, Frendo Randon and Others v. Malta (just satisfaction), no. 2226/10, § 20, 9 July 2013, and Azzopardi v. Malta, no. 28177/12, § 66, 6 November 2014, also cited at § 87 of the judgment; see also Michael Theodossiou Ltd v. Cyprus, no. 31811/04, §§ 15-23, 14 April 2015).

• EGMR, 06.11.2014 - 28177/12

  AZZOPARDI v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  The Court notes that in similar cases (see, for example, Frendo Randon and Others v. Malta (just satisfaction), no. 2226/10, § 20, 9 July 2013 and Azzopardi v. Malta, no. 28177/12, § 66, 6 November 2014) the sum to be awarded to the applicants was calculated on the basis of the value of the land at the time of the taking, converted to the current value to offset the effects of inflation, plus simple statutory interest applied to the capital progressively adjusted.

  In particular, compensation is then assessed by ascertaining the market value of the expropriated property at that time, adjusted to inflation and with interest added, as was the majority's approach in the present case (see cases referred to in paragraph 87 of the judgment, namely, Frendo Randon and Others v. Malta (just satisfaction), no. 2226/10, § 20, 9 July 2013, and Azzopardi v. Malta, no. 28177/12, § 66, 6 November 2014, also cited at § 87 of the judgment; see also Michael Theodossiou Ltd v. Cyprus, no. 31811/04, §§ 15-23, 14 April 2015).

• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  Denisov v. Ukraine

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  According to the Court's constant case-law, the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined according to a subjective test, where regard must be had to the personal conviction and behaviour of a particular judge, that is, whether the judge held any personal prejudice or bias in a given case; and also according to an objective test, that is to say by ascertaining whether the tribunal itself and, among other aspects, its composition, offered sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in respect of its impartiality (see, inter alia, Fey v. Austria, 24 February 1993, §§ 27, 28 and 30, Series A no. 255-A, Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII and Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 61, 25 September 2018).

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  The requisite balance will not be struck where the person concerned bears an individual and excessive burden (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69-74, Series A no. 52, and Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 78, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  In itself, the objective test is functional in nature: for instance, the exercise of different functions within the judicial process by the same person (see Piersack v. Belgium, 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, pp. 14-15), or hierarchical or other links with another actor in the proceedings (see cases regarding the dual role of a judge, for example, Wettstein, cited above, § 47, and Mežnarić v. Croatia, no. 71615/01, 15 July 2005), give rise to objectively justified misgivings as to the impartiality of the tribunal, which thus fails to meet the Convention standard under the objective test (see Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, § 121, ECHR 2005-XIII).
• EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

  FEY v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  According to the Court's constant case-law, the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined according to a subjective test, where regard must be had to the personal conviction and behaviour of a particular judge, that is, whether the judge held any personal prejudice or bias in a given case; and also according to an objective test, that is to say by ascertaining whether the tribunal itself and, among other aspects, its composition, offered sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in respect of its impartiality (see, inter alia, Fey v. Austria, 24 February 1993, §§ 27, 28 and 30, Series A no. 255-A, Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII and Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 61, 25 September 2018).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  According to the Court's constant case-law, the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined according to a subjective test, where regard must be had to the personal conviction and behaviour of a particular judge, that is, whether the judge held any personal prejudice or bias in a given case; and also according to an objective test, that is to say by ascertaining whether the tribunal itself and, among other aspects, its composition, offered sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in respect of its impartiality (see, inter alia, Fey v. Austria, 24 February 1993, §§ 27, 28 and 30, Series A no. 255-A, Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII and Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 61, 25 September 2018).
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 33771/02

  DRIZA c. ALBANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  Whether the judges were called on to review their own decisions, and thus whether they had erred in their earlier decisions, is also a relevant factor (see, for example, Driza v. Albania, no. 33771/02, § 81, ECHR 2007-V (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.05.2003 - 72203/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  Compensation terms under the relevant legislation are material to the assessment of whether or not the contested measure respects the requisite fair balance and, in particular, whether it imposes a disproportionate burden on the individuals (see Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos. 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01, § 94, ECHR 2005-VI).
• EGMR, 02.05.2019 - 50956/16

  PASQUINI v. SAN MARINO

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 36318/18

  The Court observes that in the present case the issues determined by the same judges who sat on the Court of Appeal and again on the Constitutional Court - whether seen as judges sitting in two different sets of proceedings, or in one and the same set of proceedings - concerned the same persons and the same facts (compare Pasquini v. San Marino, no. 50956/16, § 145, 2 May 2019).
• EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 58954/09

  OBOTE v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 75225/13

  B. TAGLIAFERRO & SONS LIMITED v. MALTA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 46575/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 57752/16

  GAUCI AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 2065/03

  WARSICKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 18544/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.10.2017 - 36073/04

  FAZLI ASLANER AGAINST TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 42584/21

  B & B PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. MALTA

  This, in their view, was in line with the Court's case-law concerning compensation due in expropriation cases, as for example Scerri v. Malta (no. 36318/18, § 50, 7 July 2020), noting that it remained important however to offset the effects of inflation over the time.

  75225/13 and 77311/13, § 74, 11 September 2018, and Scerri v. Malta, no. 36318/18, § 55, 7 July 2020).

• EuGH, 19.12.2024 - C-369/23

  Vivacom Bulgaria - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Art. 19 Abs. 1 Unterabs. 2 EUV …

  Rn. 48 Wie die Generalanwältin in Nr. 39 ihrer Schlussanträge ausgeführt hat, ergibt sich vielmehr aus den Urteilen des EGMR vom 29. Juli 2004, San Leonard Band Club/Malta (CE:ECHR:2004:0729JUD007756201), und vom 7. Juli 2020, Scerri/Malta (CE:ECHR:2020:0707JUD003631818), dass, wenn dieselben Richter in einem bestimmten Verfahren darüber zu entscheiden haben, ob sie in einer früheren Entscheidung Fehler bei der Rechtsauslegung oder -anwendung gemacht haben, eine Verletzung von Art. 6 EMRK festgestellt werden müsste.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.07.2024 - C-369/23

  Vivacom Bulgaria - Vorabentscheidungsersuchen - Haftung eines Mitgliedstaats für …

  {FN:28} Vgl. Urteile des EGMR vom 29. Juli 2004, San Leonard Band Club/Malta (CE:ECHR:2004:0729JUD007756201, §§ 61 bis 66), und vom 7. Juli 2020, Scerri/Malta (CE:ECHR:2020:0707JUD003631818, §§ 75 bis 81).

• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 13129/19

  MANNANTHARA NATARAJAN v. GERMANY

  Furthermore, while the performance of the same judges of different functions in the same proceedings may raise an impartiality issue (compare Scerri v. Malta, no. 36318/18, § 76, 7 July 2020), the Court considers that the situation in the present case would not have raised any such issues in view of the very nature of the complaint.
• EGMR, 24.06.2025 - 4986/24

  A AND B v. MALTA

  Rn. 3 It is also true - and here I agree with the majority - that an automatic disqualification of all judges at national level in such circumstances is not justified, and the time which elapsed between the different participations in proceedings could be taken into consideration (see Peruš v. Slovenia, no. 35016/05, § 37, 27 September 2012, and Scerri v. Malta, no. 36318/18, § 76, 7 July 2020).
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 22008/20

  AZZOPARDI v. MALTA

  The Court notes first and foremost that in the present case the applicant did not complain about the delay in paying her compensation or that the compensation paid had not taken account of the passage of time (see Abdilla, cited above, and, a contrario, for example, Scerri v. Malta, no. 36318/18, § 49, 7 July 2020).
• EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 48719/20

  PISANI v. MALTA

  In those cases, where there was no doubt about the public interest behind the measure, the Court finding a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (because of the inadequate compensation provided by law in view of the passage of time) awarded compensation applying the guidelines established in Schembri and Others v. Malta ((just satisfaction), no. 42583/06, 28 September 2010), i.e. on the basis of the value of the land at the time of the original taking, progressively adjusted to the time of the Court's judgment, plus interest (see, for example, Frendo Randon and Others v. Malta, (just satisfaction), no. 2226/10, § 20, 9 July 2013; Deguara Caruana Gatto and Others v. Malta, no. 14796/11, § 98, 9 July 2013; Azzopardi v. Malta, no. 28177/12, §§ 66 and 69, 6 November 2014; and Scerri v. Malta, no. 36318/18, §§ 53-54, 7 July 2020).
• EGMR, 04.11.2025 - 35359/23

  GOGINASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Moreover, Judge V.K. was not called on to review his own decisions or to determine whether his application of the law had been adequate and sufficient (see, a contrario, Driza v. Albania, no. 33771/02, §§ 81-82, ECHR 2007-V (extracts), and Scerri v. Malta, no. 36318/18, § 78, 7 July 2020).
• EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 5870/24

  FARRUGIA v. MALTA

  Rn. 18 The Court notes that the applicant's request for referral to the constitutional jurisdictions was rejected by the Court of Appeal only because the complaint was at that stage premature (an approach which was in line with other domestic examples, see for example, Scerri v. Malta, no. 36318/18, § 11, 7 July 2020).
• EGMR - 78122/12 (anhängig)

  GALATOLA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE et 1 autre requête

  Quant à la requête no 78122/12, peut-on considérer que la cause des requérants a été entendue par un tribunal « impartial'au sens de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ? En particulier, le fait que la procédure d'opposition contre la décision du juge de l'exécution ait lieu, aux termes des articles 676, alinéa 1 et 667, alinéa 4 du CPP, devant le même juge, est-il conforme aux garanties découlant de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (Pasquini c. Saint-Marin, no 50956/16, § 142, 2 mai 2019, et Scerri c. Malte, no 36318/18, § 78, 7 juillet 2020) ?.
• EGMR, 09.07.2024 - 7011/19

  STRANCARIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2024 - 22458/18

  KALCICEK v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 37474/21

  CHEMEL AND TABONE v. MALTA
• EGMR, 26.08.2025 - 84056/17

  KROI AND NOCKA v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2025 - 71529/14

  Î.M. BECOR S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA