Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 45092/07 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PYRANTIENE v. LITHUANIA
Art. 35, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property) Just satisfaction reserved (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
(Verfahrensmitteilung)
Pyrantiene v. Lithuania
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 45092/07
- EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 45092/07
- EGMR, 13.04.2016 - 45092/07
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (22)
- EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 45092/07
The requisite balance will not be struck where the person concerned bears an individual and excessive burden (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69-74, Series A no. 52, and Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 78, ECHR 1999-VII). - EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87
PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 45092/07
In these circumstances, the "legitimate expectation" is also based on a reasonably justified reliance on a legal act which has a sound legal basis and which bears on property rights (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-IX, and Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, § 51, Series A no. 222). - EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 46129/99
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 45092/07
In this connection, the Court has already found that the taking of property without payment of an amount reasonably related to its value will normally constitute a disproportionate interference (see The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 71, Series A no. 301-A; Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-XII; and Zvolský and Zvolská v. the Czech Republic, no. 46129/99, § 70, ECHR 2002-IX).
- EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 7097/10
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 45092/07
The Court considers that the applicant had very limited opportunities, if any, to influence the terms of the contract or the purchase price, as this was within the State's exclusive competence (see, mutatis mutandis, Gladysheva v. Russia, no. 7097/10, § 79, 6 December 2011). - EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 21861/03
HAMER v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 45092/07
It holds that she was a bona fide owner and her proprietary interest in the enjoyment of the land had been sufficiently established (see, for comparison, Hamer v. Belgium, no. 21861/03, § 76, ECHR 2007-V (extracts)). - EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 41510/98
JASIUNIENE v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 45092/07
Quite differently from the cases where the former owners argued their entitlement to a restoration of ownership rights to property that was nationalised during the communist regime, the present case does not concern an applicant's claim to have his property returned or for compensation for nationalised possessions (see Broniowski, cited above, § 121; JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 40, 6 March 2003; and Jurevicius v. Lithuania, no. 30165/02, § 23, 14 November 2006). - EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 29979/04
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 45092/07
It requires that where an issue pertaining to the general interest is at stake, especially when it affects fundamental human rights, including property rights, the public authorities must act promptly and in an appropriate and above all consistent manner (see Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 120, ECHR 2000-I; Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova, no. 21151/04, § 72, ECHR 2008; and Rysovskyy v. Ukraine, no. 29979/04, § 71, 20 October 2011). - EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 74258/01
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 45092/07
The disproportion between the land's market value and the compensation awarded is too significant for the Court to find that a "fair balance" was struck between the interests of the community and the applicants" fundamental rights (see, mutatis mutandis, Urbárska Obec Trencianske Biskupice v. Slovakia, no. 74258/01, § 126, 27 November 2007, and Vistins and Perepjolkins, cited above, § 130). - EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 75115/01
MOHYLOVÁ c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 45092/07
In order to assess the burden borne by the applicant, the Court must assess the particular circumstances of each case, namely the conditions under which the disputed property was acquired and the compensation that was received by the applicant in exchange for the property, as well as the applicant's personal and social situation (see, mutatis mutandis, Mohylová v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 75115/01, 6 September 2005). - EGMR, 31.07.2001 - 42195/98
MORTIER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 45092/07
The "right to a court", of which the right of access is one aspect, is not absolute; it is subject to limitations permitted by implication, in particular where the conditions of admissibility of an appeal are concerned, since by its very nature it calls for regulation by the State, which enjoys a certain margin of appreciation in this regard (see García Manibardo v. Spain, no. 38695/97, § 36, ECHR 2000-II, and Mortier v. France, no. 42195/98, § 33, 31 July 2001). - EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 13102/04
IMPAR LTD. v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 30165/02
JUREVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 15.03.2007 - 43278/98
VELIKOVI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 30.08.2007 - 44302/02
J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LTD ET J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LAND LTD c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 51362/99
ENEVA AND DOBREV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 48380/99
TODOROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 194/02
NIKOLOVI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 36548/97
- EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 73465/01
TZILEVI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 60036/00
BOGDANOVI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 7352/03
BESHIRI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 12278/03
PADALEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 13.04.2016 - 45092/07, 17978/05, 31102/06, 34911/06 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PYRANTIENE ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA LITUANIE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PYRANTIENE AND 3 OTHER CASES AGAINST LITHUANIA
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 45092/07
- EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 45092/07
- EGMR, 13.04.2016 - 45092/07, 17978/05, 31102/06, 34911/06
Wird zitiert von ... (9) Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 34911/06
DIGRYTE KLIBAVICIENE v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2016 - 45092/07
34911/06. - KAGH, 27.04.2012 - M 12/11
Änderung der Parkordnung eines Parkhauses; Zustimmung der Mitarbeitervertretung
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2016 - 45092/07
12/11/2013. - LG Bonn, 25.09.2008 - 27 Qs 5/08
Rechtmäßigkeit einer Durchsuchung von Geschäftsräumen aufgrund des Verdachts …
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2016 - 45092/07
27/08/2014.
- RG, 05.06.1905 - 27/05
1. Unter welchen Voraussetzungen erfüllt das Entgehen eines Gewinnes im …
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2016 - 45092/07
27/05/2014. - EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 31102/06
PAPLAUSKIENE v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2016 - 45092/07
31102/06. - EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 17978/05
ARLAUSKAS AND ALBERGAS v. LITHUANIA and 8 other applications
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2016 - 45092/07
17978/05.
- EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 34911/06
DIGRYTE KLIBAVICIENE v. LITHUANIA
For relevant domestic law and practice see Pyrantiene v. Lithuania (no. 45092/07, §§ 16-22, 12 November 2013) and Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania (no. 17978/05, 27 May 2014, §§ 21-33).Furthermore, the application is, in my view, distinguishable from Pyrantiene v. Lithuania, no. 45092/07, 12 November 2013; Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania, no. 17978/05, 27 May 2014; and Paplauskiene v. Lithuania, no. 31102/06, 14 October 2014 (not final), in which the Court did find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These cases differ from the present case on account of the excessive length of the periods in question and the lack of or insufficient compensation for damages resulting from the authorities" mistakes.
- EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 43730/07
[FRE]
En d'autres termes, le risque de toute erreur de la part d'une autorité publique doit être supporté par l'État et aucune erreur ne doit être réparée au détriment de la personne concernée (Gashi c. Croatie, no 32457/05, § 40, 13 décembre 2007 ; Gladysheva c. Russie, no 7097/10, § 80, 6 décembre 2011 ; Pyrantienė c. Lituanie, no 45092/07, § 70, 12 novembre 2013 ; Marija Božić c. Croatie, no 50636/09, § 56, 24 avril 2014 ; Šimecki c. Croatie, no 15253/10, § 46, 30 avril 2014, et Albergas et Arlauskas c. Lituanie, no 17978/05, § 59, 27 mai 2014). - EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 2971/08
ARBACIAUSKIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA
Although the Court accepts that Contracting States are in principle justified in prioritising the interests of former owners to restore their property rights (see, among other authorities, Pyrantienė v. Lithuania, no. 45092/07, § 48, 12 November 2013, and Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania, no. 17978/05, § 57, 27 May 2014), in the present case the Government did not demonstrate that any restoration claims had been submitted in respect of the plot allocated to the applicant, nor that in general the former owners' claims in the Buivydiškės cadastral area had been of such extent as to preclude any possibility of allocating two hectares to the applicant in due time.
- EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 30106/10
BIDZHIYEVA v. RUSSIA
68. Mais la Cour relève surtout que, mis à part les fondations que la requérante dit avoir fait réaliser, sans préciser quand et dont la Cour ignore le coût, la requérante n'a pas aménagé cette parcelle destinée à la construction et a montré très peu d'intérêt à son égard (voir, mutatis mutandis, Malfatto et Mieille c. France, nos 40886/06 et 51946/07, §§ 69-71, 6 octobre 2016, et les affaires qui y sont citées, voir, a contrario, Pyrantienė c. Lituanie, no 45092/07, §§ 6 et 62, 12 novembre 2013, l'affaire où, avant la reprise du terrain par les autorités, la requérante y cultivait des légumes et les vendait au marché, et où cette activité était sa principale source de revenus). - EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 25747/07
ROMANKEVIC v. LITHUANIA
For the relevant domestic law and practice see Pyrantiene v. Lithuania (no. 45092/07, §§ 16-22, 12 November 2013), and Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania (no. 17978/05, §§ 21-33, 27 May 2014). - EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 31102/06
PAPLAUSKIENE v. LITHUANIA
For relevant domestic law and practice, see Pyrantiene v. Lithuania (no. 45092/07, §§ 16-22, 12 November 2013) and Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania (no. 17978/05, §§ 21-33, 27 May 2014). - EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 57675/09
ZILINSKIENE v. LITHUANIA
The Court refers to its findings in Pyrantienė v. Lithuania (no. 45092/07, § 27, 12 November 2013) and Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania (no. 17978/05, § 44, 27 May 2014), where it was not demonstrated that at the time the application in question was lodged with the Court, a claim under Article 6.271 of the Civil Code would have constituted an effective remedy and would have had any prospects of success (see, mutatis mutandis, Beshiri and Others v. Albania, no. 7352/03, § 55, 22 August 2006). - EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 42927/08
TUNAITIS v. LITHUANIA
For relevant domestic law and practice, see Pyrantienė v. Lithuania (no. 45092/07, §§ 16-22, 12 November 2013) and Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania (no. 17978/05, §§ 21-33, 27 May 2014). - EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 17285/08
NOREIKIENE AND NOREIKA v. LITHUANIA
For relevant domestic law and practice, see Pyrantienė v. Lithuania (no. 45092/07, §§ 16-22, 12 November 2013) and Albergas and Arlauskas v. Lithuania (no. 17978/05, §§ 21-33, 27 May 2014).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 45092/07 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PYRANTIENE v. LITHUANIA
Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Art. 39 MRK
Struck out of the list (Article 37-1 - Striking out applications) (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 45092/07
- EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 45092/07
- EGMR, 13.04.2016 - 45092/07
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".