Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAL v. POLAND

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RAL v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  Thlimmenos ./. Griechenland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 41178/12

  Thus, the circumstances complained of did not amount to a situation in which a State, without an objective and reasonable justification, failed to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different (the Government cited in this context Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV and Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, § 288, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 41178/12

  By way of contrast, the hope of recognition of a property right which it has been impossible to exercise effectively cannot be considered a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition (see Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, §§ 82-83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 27.04.1999 - 40832/98

  BELLET, HUERTAS ET VIALATTE contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 41178/12

  40832/98, 40833/98 and 40906/98, 27 April 1999, and also the principles set out in Béláné Nagy, cited above, §§ 86-87).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.01.2023 - 22386/19

  VALVERDE DIGON v. SPAIN

  As a result, she could not have had, as she had asserted, a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining a possession in the sense in which the Court had repeatedly defined this concept under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Government submitted that Constitutional Court judgment STC 40/2014 had brought about a regulatory change, and that the Court had consistently stated that future income was not part of the concept of a "possession" (they cited, inter alia, J.B. and others v. Hungary, no. 45434/12 45438/12 375/13, 20 December 2018; Ral v. Poland, no. 41178/12, 10 January 2019; and Bladh v. Sweden, no. 46125/06, 10 November 2009).