Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
Irrecevable (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GRATZINGER AND GRATZINGEROVA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (241) Neu Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89
SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98
In this connection, it should be reiterated that the national authorities must also have regard to the demands of efficiency and economy, which would be hampered if hearings were systematically held in proceedings of this kind (see, among other authorities, Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, pp. 19-20, § 58 in fine, and Hesse-Anger and Anger v. Germany (dec.), no. 45835/99, ECHR 2001-VI). - EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87
PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98
In the eventuality of the Court's holding that they had not been entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of the possessions in issue, the applicants argued that they had at least had a legitimate expectation, which had been even greater than that of the applicants in the case of Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland (judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222), in which the Court had held that the legitimate expectation of being able to carry out a proposed development had to be regarded, for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as a "component part of the property in question" (§ 51). - EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91
DIENNET v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98
By rendering the administration of justice transparent, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see, for example, Diennet v. France, 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, pp. 14-15, § 33, and Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, 12 July 2001, § 55).
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95
CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98
The Court accordingly considers that the fact that no public hearing was held in the proceedings in the Constitutional Court was sufficiently compensated by the public hearings held at the decisive stage of the proceedings, when the merits of the applicants" restitution claims were determined (see Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 53, ECHR 2000-VI). - EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85
HELMERS c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98
The Court's task is, above all, to ascertain whether the special features of the domestic proceedings viewed as a whole justify a departure from the principle that there should be a public hearing (see, among other authorities, Helmers v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 15, §§ 31-32). - EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80
LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98
In support of that argument, the applicants relied, inter alia, on the general principles of international law embodied in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, entailing the obligation to pay compensation to non-nationals in cases of expropriation (see Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 49, § 117). - EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 11581/85
DARBY v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98
In their submission, if the Czech Republic had decided to enable rehabilitated persons to recover their former possessions, it could not deny that possibility to non-nationals, in the light of the Court's case-law (see Darby v. Sweden, 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187, p. 13, § 34, and Gaygusuz v. Austria, 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, p. 1142, §§ 40-41). - EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88
KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98
It has no independent existence since it has effect solely in relation to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms safeguarded by the Convention; there can be no room for its application unless the facts in issue fall within the ambit of one or more of its provisions (see, among other authorities, Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, p. 32, § 22, and Gaygusuz v. Austria, cited above, p. 1141, § 36). - EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84
SCHENK c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98
In particular, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45-46, and García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I). - EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91
PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98
The applicants considered their position to be similar to that of the applicants in the case of Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium (judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332), in which the Court had held that claims for compensation that had come into existence as soon as the damage had occurred "constituted an asset" and therefore amounted to a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (§ 31). - EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96
GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80
VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE
- BVerfG, 26.10.2004 - 2 BvR 955/00
Bodenreform III
Nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung des EGMR schützt Art. 1 ZP 1 jedoch nicht nur nach nationalem Recht bereits vorhandene Eigentumspositionen (existing possessions), sondern auch erworbene Ansprüche, auf deren Realisierung der Anspruchsinhaber berechtigterweise vertrauen durfte (legitimate expectations) (EGMR, Nr. 39794/98, Urteil vom 10. Juli 2002, Ziffer 69 - Gratzinger gegen Tschechische Republik; Nr. 40057/98, Urteil vom 4. März 2003, Ziffer 2 - Walderode gegen Tschechische Republik).In den Fällen Walderode (EGMR, Nr. 40057/98, Urteil vom 4. März 2003) und Harrach (EGMR, Nr. 77532/01, Beschluss vom 27. Mai 2003) ging es um Grundstücke ehemaliger deutscher Staatsangehöriger, die auf der Grundlage der Benes-Dekrete enteignet wurden; in dem Fall Gratzinger (EGMR, Nr. 39794/98, Urteil vom 10. Juli 2002) war die Enteignung eines aus der Tschechoslowakei geflohenen Ehepaars Gegenstand des Verfahrens.
- EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 17056/06
MICALLEF v. MALTA
Les procédures préliminaires, comme celles conduisant à l'adoption d'une mesure provisoire telle qu'une injonction, ne sont pas normalement considérées comme portant sur une contestation sur des droits et obligations de caractère civil et ne relèvent donc pas habituellement de la protection de l'article 6 (voir, entre autres, Wiot c. France (déc.), no 43722/98, 15 mars 2001, APIS a.s. c. Slovaquie (déc.), no 39794/98, 13 janvier 2002, Verlagsgruppe News GmbH c. Autriche (déc.), no 62763/00, 16 janvier 2003, et Libert c. Belgique (déc.), no 44734/98, 8 juillet 2004). - EGMR, 02.03.2005 - 71916/01
Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetzes über die Wiedergutmachung von …
Hingegen kann die Erwartung, dass einer Person ein Eigentumsrecht zuerkannt wird, das diese aber effektiv nicht ausüben kann, nicht als "Eigentum" im Sinne des Artikels 1 des Protokolls Nr. 1 betrachtet werden; gleiches gilt für eine bedingte Forderung, die in Anbetracht der Nichtverwirklichung der Bedingung erlischt (siehe die vorgenannte Rechtssache Fürst Hans-Adam II von Liechtenstein ./. Deutschland , Rdnr. 82 und 83, CEDH-2001-VIII, und Gratzinger und Gratzingerova ./. Tschechische Republik (Entsch.) [GC], Nr. 39794/98, Rdnr. 69, CEDH-2002-VII).
- EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09
CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY
Further, the hope that a long-extinguished property right may be revived cannot be regarded as a "possession"; nor can a conditional claim which has lapsed as a result of a failure to fulfil the condition (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII). - EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
Budweiser-Streit
Further, the hope that a long-extinguished property right may be revived cannot be regarded as a "possession"; nor can a conditional claim which has lapsed as a result of a failure to fulfil the condition ( Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII). - VG Regensburg, 02.12.2010 - RO 5 K 09.1350
Aufhebung der treuhänderischen Verwaltung von tschechischen Grundstücken durch …
Nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte schütze Art. 1 ZP 1 EMRK nicht nur nach nationalem Recht bereits vorhandene Eigentumspositionen (existing possessions), sondern auch erworbene Ansprüche, auf deren Realisierung der Anspruchsinhaber berechtigterweise vertrauen durfte (legitimate expectations) (EGMR, Nr. 39794/98, Urteil vom 10. Juli 2002 - G... gegen Tschechische Republik; Nr. 40057/98, Urteil vom 4. März 2003 - Wa... gegen Tschechische Republik).Im Fall G... (EGMR, Nr. 39794/98, Urteil vom 10. Juli 2002) war die Enteignung eines aus der Tschechoslowakei geflohenen Ehepaars Gegenstand des Verfahrens.
(EGMR, Nr. 40057/98, Urteil vom 4. März 2003 - Wa...; EGMR, Nr. 77532/01, Beschluss vom 27. Mai 2003 - Ha... sowie EGMR, Nr. 39794/98, Urteil vom 10. Juli 2002 - G...; vgl. ferner den bereits oben (B. III. 2.) dargestellten Beschluss des BVerfG vom 26.10.2004 zu den Enteignungen in der sowjetischen Besatzungszone, BVerfGE 112, 1).
- EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11
PARRILLO v. ITALY
Further, the hope that a long-extinguished property right may be revived cannot be regarded as a "possession"; nor can a conditional claim which has lapsed as a result of a failure to fulfil the condition (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII). - EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 44912/98
KOPECKÝ c. SLOVAQUIE
Par contre, l'espoir de voir reconnaître un droit de propriété que l'on est dans l'impossibilité d'exercer effectivement ne peut être considéré comme un « bien'au sens de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1, et il en va de même d'une créance conditionnelle s'éteignant du fait de la non-réalisation de la condition (Prince Hans-Adam II de Liechtenstein c. Allemagne [GC], no 42527/98, §§ 82 et 83, CEDH 2001-VIII, et Gratzinger et Gratzingerova c. République tchèque (déc.) [GC], no 39794/98, § 69, CEDH 2002-VII).Eu égard au but poursuivi par les lois de restitution et à la définition de la notion d'ayant droit figurant aux articles 3 et 19 de la loi sur les réhabilitations extrajudiciaires, la présente espèce se distingue clairement des précédentes affaires de restitution Brezny c. Slovaquie, no 23131/93, décision de la Commission du 4 mars 1996, Décisions et rapports 85-A, Malhous c. République tchèque (déc.) [GC], no 33071/96, CEDH 2000-XII, Gratzinger et Gratzingerova c. République tchèque (déc.) [GC], no 39794/98, CEDH 2002-VII, et Jantner c. Slovaquie (déc.), no 39050/97, 4 mars 2003.
- EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
The Court has also referred to claims in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised, that is, that he or she will obtain effective enjoyment of a property right (see, inter alia, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII, and Kopecký, cited above, § 35). - EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13
BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY
The hope that a long-extinguished property right may be revived cannot be regarded as a "possession"; nor can a conditional claim which has lapsed as a result of a failure to fulfil the condition (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, §§ 69 and 73, ECHR 2002-VII).By way of example, in a number of cases the Court examined, respectively, whether the applicants had "a claim which was sufficiently established to be enforceable" (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, § 74, ECHR 2002-VII); whether they demonstrated the existence of "an assertable right under domestic law to a welfare benefit" (see Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos.
- EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 19620/05
UZAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 66529/11
N.K.M. v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 51896/12
COLLOREDO MANSFELDOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 30767/05
MARIA ATANASIU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26501/05
EPARHIJA BUDIMLJANSKO-NIKSICKA AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 9557/04
GROMADA UKRAYINSKOYI GREKO-KATOLYTSKOYI TSERKVY SELA KORSHIV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 33705/09
CANAJ v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 19558/02
NACARYAN ET DERYAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 26659/08
MILASINOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 21861/03
HAMER v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 55537/10
HAUPT v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 24.08.2004 - 58580/00
BLUCHER c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 22607/02
RYMSKO-KATOLYTSKA GROMADA SVYATOGO KLYMENTIYA V MISTI SEVASTOPOLI v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 481/04
SMILJANIC v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 33545/14
EÓLICA DE S. JULIÃO, LDA c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 26937/04
TRESKA c. ALBANIE ET ITALIE
- EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 76943/11
PAROISSE GRÉCO-CATHOLIQUE LUPENI ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53080/13
BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 3991/03
Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - award Non-pecuniary damage - finding of a …
- EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 73049/01
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC. c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 60861/00
MANOILESCU AND DOBRESCU v. ROMANIA AND RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 49570/11
GÁLL v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 37265/10
LOHUIS AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 21773/05
G. M. und G. M. gegen Deutschland
- EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 37715/13
DE SOUSA MAGALHÃES ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 47911/15
TELBIS AND VIZITEU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 46575/09
BELLIZZI v. MALTA
- EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 7975/06
KLAUS ET IOURI KILADZE c. GEORGIE
- EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 7352/03
BESHIRI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 24.05.2006 - 63945/00
WEISSMAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 01.09.2005 - 290/03
R. A. u.a. gegen Deutschland
- EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 54748/09
LONCA ORGANIZASYON ELEKTRONIK GIDA MEDYA YAYINCILIK SANAYI VE TICARET A.S. v. …
- EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 78612/12
PRIBIL v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05
SANDU AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 38016/07
SIERPINSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 22279/04
PLECHANOW v. POLAND
- EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 14849/08
E. u. a. ./. Deutschland
- EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 20612/02
SLAVOV and OTHERSv. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 44912/98
KOPECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 12.09.2017 - 19875/13
ZAMOYSKI-BRISSON AND OTHERS v. POLAND
- EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 30383/03
SIVOVA ET KOLEVA c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 70930/01
BLUMBERGA v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 44580/98
SIRC v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 57808/00
ALBINA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 53341/99
HARTMAN contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 19258/07
DÖNMEZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 8585/13
PIEKARSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND
- EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 14174/09
STOJANOVSKI AND OTHERS v.
- EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 12030/03
YIANOPULU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 2000/09
ZÁKOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 29.01.2008 - 19247/03
BALAN v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 36675/07
TOZKOPARAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 9161/07
DEMIR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 38024/08
KRSTANOSKI AND OTHERS v.
- EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 15275/11
COLLOREDO MANNSFELD v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 45826/11
ELEFTHERIOS G. KOKKINAKIS - DILOS KYKLOFORIAKI A.T.E. c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 16722/10
MEYER v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 1471/05
NEKVEDAVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 19579/07
LA COMPAGNIE DES FILLES DE LA CHARITÉ DE SAINT-VINCENT-DE-PAUL c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 42416/06
ZIAUNYS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 30164/03
NEGREANU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 25143/08
PANTELIOU-DARNE ET BLANTZOUKA c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 32247/08
MORARIU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 377/02
MENSHAKOVA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 9580/03
GÜMRÜKÇÜLER ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 18257/04
RIMER ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 7901/02
HAGIESCU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 6489/03
KARAMAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 20294/02
DDRACULET c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 10508/02
GJONBOCARI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 16.10.2006 - 2725/04
H. E. B. gegen Deutschland
- EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 33244/02
GAVELLA c. CROATIE
- EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 31390/18
PETRESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 15886/15
S.C. UZINEXPORT S.A. c. ROUMANIE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 73303/14
BÉLA NÉMETH v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 75414/10
KURBAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 5814/09
DEMIR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 22.09.2020 - 5496/10
ALTUNTAS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 59688/10
ÇARIKÇI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 46852/09
KÜÇÜK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 38868/17
FAJKOVIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 38792/08
YÜCE c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 18740/05
BASA c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 40865/05
MURAT AKIN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 50853/06
KVASNEVSKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 32045/10
CHRISTIAN BAPTIST CHURCH IN WROCLAW v. POLAND
- EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 49025/06
BILICI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 53528/07
PAROISSE GRÉCO-CATHOLIQUE GLOD c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 34827/11
MEISSNER c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
- EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 34827/11
MEISSNER c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
- EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 64480/09
LULI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 14991/08
DRACKA ET HLAVENKOVÁ c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
- EGMR, 04.09.2012 - 59282/11
DOLCA ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36571/06
B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 06.09.2011 - 10174/05
GATLAN c. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 6990/04
EKDAL ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 43905/04
HASKOVCOVÁ ET VERÍSOVÁ c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 28936/03
VELIKIN ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 17140/05
KEMP ET AUTRES c. LUXEMBOURG
- EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 55179/00
GLASER c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 9717/05
EPSTEIN ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 24.05.2006 - 58318/00
GEORGI c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 7632/04
BRECHOS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 1414/03
MARES c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 40424/12
RAMIZ JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 12.11.2020 - 36046/15
MIGORYANU AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OF THE CITY OF IZMAIL v. …
- EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 55854/10
KRAUJAS HES v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 49211/07
KOVACS c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 25723/08
ÇALIKUSU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 25676/08
ÇALIKUSU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 02.04.2019 - 61412/11
FONDATION DU MONASTÈRE SYRIAQUE DE SAINT-GABRIEL À MIDYAT c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 50702/18
AKIN PEKER v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 56202/12
DOKOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 30635/09
MELADZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 52524/13
MAROZAITE v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 20462/04
IPSEFTEL v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 67390/10
MARCAN v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 19854/06
MUNCITORUL GROSUL v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 32913/03
TOPALLAJ v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 37957/15
SOYUPOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 23597/11
CAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 52210/09
JAHJAGA v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 18439/05
BEJKO v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 19449/08
GÜLTEKIN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 39162/12
RUIZ-FUNES MONTESINOS ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 67939/10
DUMITRESCU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 10968/04
KECMAN v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 25805/05
HOLEVICH v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 6754/05
92.9 HIT FM RADIO GMBH v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 20690/06
KOIVUSAARI AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 21426/03
KECELI ET BASPINAR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 22762/05
MOLNAR GABOR v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 39590/04
SOKOLOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 17064/06
SHUB v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 1722/07
GIANNILOS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 26662/02
CRAIU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 13767/04
SARI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 43775/05
BATA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 12045/06
ICHTIGIAROGLOU c. GRECE
- EGMR, 01.04.2008 - 43389/02
GACESA v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 01.04.2008 - 22011/03
DEKANY v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 66822/01
DOLHAR v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 40117/02
CAZACU v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 13.02.2007 - 17684/02
ROSIVAL AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 35885/03
SKALOVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 12.10.2005 - 73049/01
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC. v. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 8743/03
BARTKOVA ET JANOS c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 58318/00
GEORGI c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 10.05.2005 - 5424/03
SROUB c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 10.03.2005 - 47063/99
VASILEV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 23.11.2004 - 33076/02
BITSINAS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 58867/00
CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL NORD DE FRANCE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.06.2004 - 73116/01
MARÍK contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 52863/99
KOLIHA contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 02.12.2003 - 68376/01
KOSEK contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 02.12.2003 - 45107/98
KOKTAVÁ c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 58177/00
HOUFOVÁ contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 08.04.2003 - 67199/01
CSEPYOVA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 04.03.2003 - 39050/97
JANTNER v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 42879/14
ONE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES DOOEL SKOPJE v. NORTH MACEDONIA
- EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 66249/16
ALIYEVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 62323/09
SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME ÇIFTÇILER ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 54495/08
PIVNICERU-IOAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 23709/07
SABUNCU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 39942/13
CHORBOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 12792/13
WYSOWSKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 32729/12
ÉPARCHIE GRÉCO-CATHOLIQUE DE ORASTIE ET PAROISSE ROUMAINE UNIE À ROME …
- EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 59779/14
PALFREEMAN v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 47136/06
ÇAKAR v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 11538/05
SAMUN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 5250/07
BICI v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 25747/07
ROMANKEVIC v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 37869/14
HLADKÝ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 10226/08
KALUDEROVIC-BRAJOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 13620/10
TUSHAJ v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 73093/11
FUKSA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 34880/12
RAMAER AND VAN WILLIGEN v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 51391/08
GALLEZ ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE ET VERHAEGEN c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 29514/08
ZIVKOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 22.03.2011 - 25701/06
WEHINGER v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 15400/04
HYKEL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 06.01.2011 - 41493/04
MASOKOMBINÁT PRÍBRAM, A. S. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 59915/08
CREANTOR c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 07.09.2010 - 38162/04
MELNYK v. UKRAINE (II)
- EGMR, 11.05.2010 - 29335/06
OPATSTVÍ STARÉ BRNO RÁDU SV. AUGUSTINA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 16287/03
BARTOS v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 12161/05
SAVU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 58915/08
TELHAI v. ALBANIA (NO 2)
- EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 35877/05
S.C. PRODCOMEXIM S.R.L. v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 31206/02
FOKAS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 37506/03
RADULESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 35298/04
TRGO v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 33471/06
GALATSANOU ET AUTRES c. GRECE
- EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 22522/03
BOZCAADA KIMISIS TEODOKU RUM ORTODOKS KILISESI VAKFI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 33852/04
HAROVSCHI v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 34162/06
TRIFUNOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 32735/07
CISTERCIÁCKÉ OPATSTVÍ VYSSÍ BROD v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 25460/02
SOUKUPOVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 05.02.2007 - 29086/05
VARVAROVSKY c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 20116/02
USKOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.09.2006 - 33994/02
O. Z.-K. gegen Deutschland
- EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 6019/02
BAZIL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 23.03.2006 - 57539/00
PENTIA ET PENTIA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 42320/02
TSANTIRIS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 74459/01
NOVOTKA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 61767/00
CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 77532/01
HARRACH v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 16.12.2021 - 52482/10
ASGAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 3145/17
SILVA CRUZ v. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 4014/12
JARKOVSKÝ v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 39247/12
PERSJANOW v. POLAND
- EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 66590/10
ARZHIYEVA AND TSADAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 1680/08
LUBELSKA FABRYKA MASZYN I NARZEDZI ROLNICZYCH 'PLON' AND OTHERS v. POLAND
- EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 67810/14
KARACHALIOS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 27602/14
KALAVROS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 11809/12
STRAKA AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 40974/09
HARRACH (V) v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 20511/04
PURICEL v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 66467/01
IVANOVA ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 28443/06
DE STEFANO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 13.09.2007 - 15638/06
PHOCAS c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 37147/02
CHIRITA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 20.11.2006 - 4295/03
CHROUST v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 44624/98
PRIKYAN ET ANGELOVA c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 41178/12
RAL v. POLAND
- EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 45651/11
DOBROWOLSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND
- EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 14303/11
BUDIMIR v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 19474/09
SEBEKOVÁ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 57713/09
THEODORAKIS ET THEODORAKIS-TOURISME ET HOTELS S.A. c. GRECE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 04.01.2012 - 14819/08
SCI LA ROSERAIE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 63859/00
HANULIAK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA