Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 38016/07
• EGMR, 27.07.2010 - 38016/07
• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 38016/07
• EGMR - 38016/07 (anhängig)

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIERPINSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of P1-1 No violation of Art. 6 Just satisfaction reserved (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 38016/07
• EGMR, 27.07.2010 - 38016/07
• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 38016/07
• EGMR - 38016/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 38016/07

  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 "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).

  However, the limitations applied cannot restrict or reduce the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (see, inter alia, Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII).

  Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, inter alia, Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 44, 12 July 2001, to be published in ECHR 2001-VII).

• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 38016/07

  Where the proprietary interest is in the nature of a claim it may be regarded as an "asset" only where it has a sufficient basis in national law, for example where there is settled case-law of the domestic courts confirming it (Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 52, ECHR 2004-IX; Draon v. France [GC], no. 1513/03, § 68, 6 October 2005; Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 65, 11 January 2007).
• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 38016/07

  Although where a right of appeal is provided in domestic law Article 6 § 1 applies to such appellate procedures, the right of access to an appeal court is not absolute and the State, which is permitted to place limitations on the right of appeal, enjoys a certain margin of appreciation in relation to such limitations (Delcourt v. Belgium judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, § 25; De Ponte Nascimento v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 55331/00, 31 January 2002).

 
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 36677/97

  S.A. DANGEVILLE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 38016/07

  Therefore, in the Court's view, the applicant could be considered to have a "legitimate expectation" that his claim would be dealt with in accordance with the applicable laws and, consequently, upheld (see Plechanow v. Poland, no. 22279/04, § 84-85, 7 July 2009 with references to Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, § 31 and S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, § 46-48, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 38016/07

  Therefore, in the Court's view, the applicant could be considered to have a "legitimate expectation" that his claim would be dealt with in accordance with the applicable laws and, consequently, upheld (see Plechanow v. Poland, no. 22279/04, § 84-85, 7 July 2009 with references to Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, § 31 and S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, § 46-48, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 38016/07

  Where that has been established, the concept of "legitimate expectation" can come into play, which must be of a nature more concrete than a mere hope and be based on a legal provision or a legal act such as a final judicial decision (see Draon, cited above, § 65, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, § 73, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 24846/94

  ZIELINSKI ET PRADAL & GONZALEZ ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 38016/07

  The Court has already held that divergences in case-law are an inherent consequence of any judicial system which is based on a network of trial and appeal courts with authority over the area of its territorial jurisdiction, and that the role of a supreme court is precisely to resolve conflicts between decisions of the courts below (see Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 59, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 33071/96

  MALHOUS c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 38016/07

  The Court reiterates that there is no necessary interrelation between the existence of claims covered by the notion of "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and the applicability of Article 6 § 1 (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 52, ECHR 2004-IX; J.S. and A.S. v. Poland, no. 40732/98, § 51, 24 May 2005).
• EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 15287/89

  BEAUMARTIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 38016/07

  In this context, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable where an action is "pecuniary" in nature and is founded on an alleged infringement of rights which are likewise pecuniary rights, notwithstanding the origin of the dispute (see, for example, Beaumartin v. France, judgment of 24 November 1994, Series A no. 296-B, p. 60-61, § 28).
• EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 40732/98

  J.S. AND A.S. v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 38016/07

  The Court reiterates that there is no necessary interrelation between the existence of claims covered by the notion of "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and the applicability of Article 6 § 1 (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 52, ECHR 2004-IX; J.S. and A.S. v. Poland, no. 40732/98, § 51, 24 May 2005).
• EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 55631/00

  O.B. HELLER, A.S. c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE