Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HADZHIGEORGIEVI v. BULGARIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 41064/05
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 41064/05

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 41064/05

  42525/07 and 60800/08, § 75, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 41064/05

  The principle of legal certainty requires, inter alia, that where the courts have finally determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question, save for reasons of a substantial and compelling character (see, mutatis mutandis, Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII ; and Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02

  Léger ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 41064/05

  It is the Court's practice in such cases to strike applications out of the list (see, among other authorities, Leger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, 30 March 2009, Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; and Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III).

 
• EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 27824/95

  POSTI AND RAHKO v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 41064/05

  The concept of a "continuing situation" refers to a state of affairs in which there are continuous activities or omissions by or on the part of the State which render the applicant a victim (see Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, § 39, ECHR 2002-VII; and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 25.03.1994 - 17116/90

  SCHERER v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 41064/05

  It is the Court's practice in such cases to strike applications out of the list (see, among other authorities, Leger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, 30 March 2009, Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; and Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 2476/02

  THÉVENON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 41064/05

  It is the Court's practice in such cases to strike applications out of the list (see, among other authorities, Leger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, 30 March 2009, Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; and Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 44912/98

  KOPECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 41064/05

  On the other hand, once a Contracting State, having ratified the Convention including Protocol No. 1, enacts legislation providing for the full or partial restoration of property confiscated under a previous regime, such legislation may be regarded as generating a new property right protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for persons satisfying the requirements for entitlement (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 57785/00

  ZLINSAT, SPOL. S R.O. v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 41064/05

  s r.o., v. Bulgaria, no. 57785/00, § 97, 15 June 2006).
• EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 10810/05

  CAUSH DRIZA v. ALBANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 41064/05

  The Court has on numerous occasions held that failure on the part of the authorities to comply with a final judgment gives rise to such a continuing situation (see Çaush Driza v. Albania, no. 10810/05, § 60, 15 March 2011; and Dadiani and Machabeli v. Georgia, no. 8252/08, § 38, 12 June 2012).