Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IAN EDGAR (LIVERPOOL) LIMITED contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IAN EDGAR (LIVERPOOL) LIMITED v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (26)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 37683/97

  The applicant accepts that the decision to prohibit handguns is capable in principle of amounting to a general interest within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It refers to the Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982 (Series A no. 52, p. 24, §§ 69 and 73) and submits that the Court must decide whether a fair balance has been struck between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the applicant's fundamental rights.

  The Court recalls that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees, in substance, the right to property and comprises three distinct rules (see, for example, the Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 24, § 61).

• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84

  TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 37683/97

  Similarly, in its Tre Traktörer v. Sweden judgment of 7 July 1989 (Series A no. 159, pp. 21-22, §§ 54-55), the Court assessed the loss of a restaurant business consequent upon withdrawal of a liquor licence as a control of use rather than as a deprivation of possessions.
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14556/89

  PAPAMICHALOPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 37683/97

  Whilst it is possible that in certain circumstances there may be a de facto expropriation of possessions even without any formal alienation, on the ground that property has become wholly unusable (see, for example, Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 260-B, p. 70, §§ 43-45), the present application does not disclose any such circumstances.

 
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 37683/97

  Accordingly, the Article 13 complaint is unsustainable (see the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 24, § 54).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 37683/97

  In these circumstances, the Court agrees with the Government that the applicant company had no legitimate expectation that it would be able to continue to trade in any particular type of firearm, including handguns (see the Fredin v. Sweden judgment of 22 January 1991, Series A no. 192, p. 17-18, § 54).
• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 37683/97

  They must be construed in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see, for example, the Air Canada v. the United Kingdom judgment of 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A, p. 15, §§ 29 and 30).

• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 21252/09

  Deutscher Glücksspielstaatsvertrag verstößt nicht gegen Europäische …

  Erwartete Einnahmen hingegen stellen nur dann "Eigentum´ dar, sobald sie erzielt worden sind oder soweit ein vollstreckbarer Anspruch darauf besteht (siehe Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd../. das Vereinigte Königreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 37683/97, 25. Januar 2000; und Denimark Limited und 11 andere./. das Vereinigte Königreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 37660/97, 26. September 2000).

  Der Gerichtshof ist der Ansicht, dass sich die Lage der Beschwerdeführerin in der vorliegenden Rechtssache mit der Situation vergleichen lässt, die in der Rechtssache Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd. ./. das Vereinigte Königreich ((Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I; vgl. auch Denimark Ltd. u. a. ./. das Vereinigte Königreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 37660/97, 26. September 2000) vorlag, in der das beschwerdeführende Unternehmen ein Großhandelsunternehmen für Waffen war und die Geschäftseinbußen auf ein Verbot des Besitzes von Handfeuerwaffen zurückzuführen waren.

• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 21623/13

  KÖNYV-TÁR KFT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  In the present case it is noteworthy that the State made it impossible for the applicant companies to continue their business but provided no possibility of judicial redress or any financial compensation (see, a contrario, Pinnacle Meat Processors Company and 8 Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33298/96, Commission decision of 21 October 1998, unreported, and Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Limited v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, 25 January 2000).

  [6] Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I, and Denimark Limited and 11 Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37660/97, 26 September 2000.

• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 47108/08

  ALBA GAMES AND BITI v. ALBANIA

  In that connection the Court recalls that it has so far dealt with numerous cases concerning revocation of licences to operate a business activity and that a possibility of obtaining compensation is a regular assessment in such cases, including where delicensing is the direct result of legislative intervention (see, for example, Pinnacle Meat Processors Company and 8 Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 33298/96, 21 October 1998; Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I; Findlater v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38881/97, 26 September 2000; Vékony v. Hungary, no. 65681/13, §§ 24 and 35, 13 January 2015; S.C. Antares Transport S.A. and S.C. Transroby S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 27227/08, § 49, 15 December 2015; Werra Naturstein GmbH & Co KG v. Germany, no. 32377/12, §§ 29-33, 19 January 2017; Svit Rozvag, TOV and Others v. Ukraine, nos.

 
• EGMR, 06.02.2003 - 71630/01

  A. W. und andere gegen Deutschland

  Der Gerichtshof verweist auf seine bisherige Spruchpraxis und stellt fest, dass die Rüge der Beschwerdeführer, soweit sie einen Verlust von erwarteten Einnahmen zum Gegenstand hat, nicht unter Artikel 1 des Protokolls Nr. 1 fällt; dieser Artikel ist nicht auf erwartete Einkünfte, sondern nur auf vorhandenes Eigentum anzuwenden, d.h. auf Einkünfte, sobald sie erzielt worden sind oder soweit ein vollstreckbarer Anspruch darauf besteht ( Denimark ./. Vereinigtes Königreich , Individualbeschwerde-Nr. 37660/97, Entscheidung vom 26. September 2000; Ian Edgar [Liverpool] Ltd. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich , Individualbeschwerde-Nr. 37683/97, Entscheidung vom 25. Januar 2000; siehe auch Van Marle u.a. ./. Niederlande , Urteil vom 26. Juni 1986, Serie A, Band 101, S. 13, Nr. 39-41).
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 27227/08

  S.C. ANTARES TRANSPORT S.A. AND S.C. TRANSROBY S.R.L. v. ROMANIA

  A proper balance between the general interest and the individual's rights will not be found if the person concerned has had to bear an individual and excessive burden (see, for example, Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 37683/97, 25 January 2000, and Lohuis and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 37265/10, § 56, 30 April 2013).

  In view of the above principles, the Court finds it noteworthy that the applicants" licences were withdrawn without compensation (contrast Pinnacle Meat Processors Company and 8 Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 33298/96, 21 October 1998; and Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I).

• EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 61302/00

  BUZESCU v. ROMANIA

  Referring to its previous case law, the Court notes that, in so far as it concerns a loss of future income, the applicant's complaint falls outside the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which concerns only existing possessions or legitimate expectations as to ownership (see Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 65681/13

  VÉKONY v. HUNGARY

  cit.), a disproportionate and arbitrary control measure does not satisfy the requirements of protection of possession under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It is noteworthy that the applicant's licence was extinguished without compensation (see, a contrario, Pinnacle Meat Processors Company and 8 Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 33298/96, 21 October 1998; and Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I) or the possibility of judicial redress.
• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 22716/12

  ANDRZEJ RUCI?ƒSKI v. POLAND

  The same is true for business losses resulting from general restrictions on the sale of a particular commodity or from the withdrawal of an individual licence (see Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, §§ 54-55, Series A no. 159, in relation to the withdrawal of a liquor licence from a restaurant; Pinnacle Meat Processors Company and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 33298/96, 21 October 1998, in relation to the loss of meat processing business resulting from restrictions imposed on the use of specified bovine material; and Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I in relation to the loss of business resulting from the prohibition of handguns).
• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 37553/05

  KUDREVICIUS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  The Court has consistently held that future income is only itself a "possession" once it has been earned, or an enforceable claim to it exists (see Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I; and Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, §§ 39-41, Series A no. 101).
• EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 24827/14

  FU QUAN, S.R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The requisite balance will not be struck if the person or persons concerned have had to bear an individual and excessive burden (see James and Others, v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 50, Series A no. 98; Schirmer v. Poland, no. 68880/01, § 35, 21 September 2004; Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, § 59-60, 8 December 2009; and Hábenczius, cited above, § 29; compare and contrast Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Limited v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, 25 January 2000).
• EGMR, 19.03.2013 - 3674/09

  SOLAKOGLU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.10.2015 - 35399/05

  KONSTANTIN STEFANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 39859/14

  PANNON PLAKÁT KFT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 43768/17

  HAN AARTS B.V. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 10525/09

  GRYPAIOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 3078/05

  GULER c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 29643/05

  ARAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 27180/03

  ABDULKADYROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 29840/03

  ERKAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.03.2005 - 47063/99

  VASILEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 7906/05

  BOZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 33761/02

  JOSEPHIDES v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 20.11.2007 - 76096/01

  OLCAR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 34600/03

  LEVANEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 02.10.2003 - 44126/02

  ÖZTÜRK contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 74463/01

  BAHÇEYAKA v. TURKEY