Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHROUST v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHROUST c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2006 - 4295/03

  In this connection, the Court points out that the Convention institutions have consistently held that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be either "existing possessions" (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 48, Series A no. 70, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII) or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised (see, for example, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332, and Ouzounis and Others v. Greece, no. 49144/99, § 24, 18 April 2002).
• EGMR, 26.06.1986 - 8543/79

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2006 - 4295/03

  Furthermore, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is not applicable to future earnings, but only to income once it has been earned or where an enforceable claim to it exists (see, inter alia, Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, §§ 39-41, Series A no. 101, and Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 81, 24 May 2005).
• EGMR, 06.02.2003 - 71630/01

  A. W. und andere gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2006 - 4295/03

  It does not matter that the applicant acquired that entitlement as a result of a mistaken decision in his favour - when it comes to protecting privileges granted by law, the Convention applies when the privileges concerned give rise to a legitimate expectation of acquiring certain possessions (see, mutatis mutandis, Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II).

• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2006 - 4295/03

  In this connection, the Court points out that the Convention institutions have consistently held that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be either "existing possessions" (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 48, Series A no. 70, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII) or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised (see, for example, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332, and Ouzounis and Others v. Greece, no. 49144/99, § 24, 18 April 2002).
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2006 - 4295/03

  In this connection, the Court points out that the Convention institutions have consistently held that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be either "existing possessions" (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 48, Series A no. 70, and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII) or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised (see, for example, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332, and Ouzounis and Others v. Greece, no. 49144/99, § 24, 18 April 2002).
• EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 61302/00

  BUZESCU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2006 - 4295/03

  Furthermore, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is not applicable to future earnings, but only to income once it has been earned or where an enforceable claim to it exists (see, inter alia, Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, §§ 39-41, Series A no. 101, and Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 81, 24 May 2005).
• EGMR, 26.11.2002 - 36541/97

  BUCHEN c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2006 - 4295/03

  While it did not have the authority to decide whether V.M. was entitled to the allowance, the Constitutional Court noted that when that matter was examined, the criteria specified in the Strasbourg Court's judgment in Buchen v. the Czech Republic (no. 36541/97, 26 November 2002) could not be ignored.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 30614/06

  [ENG]

  Nor were the applicants required to pay back any amounts which their respective late husband and father had received (see Chroust v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 4295/03, 20 November 2006).
• EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 48921/13

  CAKAREVIC v. CROATIA

  The Court finds that these circumstances were capable of inducing in the applicant a belief that she was entitled to receive those payments (compare Chroust v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 4295/03, 20 November 2006).
• OVG Nordrhein-Westfalen, 02.01.2007 - 20 A 424/05

  Afghanistan, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Der Kläger ist nunmehr mit einer afghanischen Landsmännin, der Klägerin des Verfahrens 20 A 665/05.A (= 5a K 4295/03.A Gelsenkirchen) verheiratet, mit der er eine Tochter hat, die Klägerin des Verfahrens 20 A 667/05.A (= 5a K 4377/03.A Gelsenkirchen).

• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 18176/05

  WIECZOREK v. POLAND

  The Court further notes that the applicant was not obliged to pay back any amounts which she had been receiving prior to the date when she was found to no longer meet the applicable legal requirements (see Chroust v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 4295/03, 20 November 2006).
• OVG Nordrhein-Westfalen, 02.01.2007 - 20 A 665/05

  Afghanistan, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  20 A 665/05.A 5a K 4295/03.A Gelsenkirchen.
• OVG Nordrhein-Westfalen, 02.01.2007 - 20 A 667/05
  Ihr Vater ist Kläger im Verfahren 20 A 424/05.A (= 5a K 3248/98.A Gelsenkirchen), ihre Mutter Klägerin im Verfahren 20 A 665/05.A (= 5a K 4295/03.A Gelsenkirchen).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 23912/12

  VALANT v. SLOVENIA

  In those circumstances the Court considers that the right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions was in issue, even if only implicitly, in the proceedings before the Slovenian Constitutional Court and that the legal arguments put forward by the applicant in that court included a complaint connected with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The complaint in question was therefore raised, at least in substance, before the Constitutional Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Chroust v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 4295/03, ECHR 2006-XV).
• EGMR, 20.11.2006 - 10072/05

  SLAVICINSKY c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  La Cour note que la situation de l'intéressé diffère de celle décrite par le requérant dans l'affaire Chroust c. République tchèque ((déc.), no 4295/03, 20 novembre 2006).