Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,69203
EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,69203)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15.09.2009 - 47045/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,69203)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15. September 2009 - 47045/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,69203)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,69203) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    AMATO GAUCI v. MALTA

    Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
    Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of P1-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (7)

  • EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 1175/06

    KASMI v. ALBANIA

    Finding it natural that the margin of appreciation available to the legislature in implementing social and economic policies should be a wide one, the Court has on many occasions declared that it will respect the legislature's judgment as to what is in the "public" or "general" interest unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation (see, amongst other authorities, Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, §§ 165-66, ECHR 2006-VIII, and Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 54, 15 September 2009).
  • EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 26771/07

    GERA DE PETRI TESTAFERRATA BONICI GHAXAQ v. MALTA

    Indeed, the Court has on various occasions held that various legislation regarding controlled rents in Malta was in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Ghigo v. Malta, no. 31122/05, §§ 69-70, 26 September 2006; Edwards v. Malta, no. 17647/04, §§ 78-79, 24 October 2006; Fleri Soler and Camilleri v. Malta, no. 35349/05, §§ 79-80, ECHR 2006-X; and Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 62, 15 September 2009).
  • EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 5591/07

    ALLEN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    However, the Court does not consider that the absolute nature of the rule and the absence of discretion in its application is necessarily inconsistent with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Twizell v. the United Kingdom, no. 25379/02, § 24, 20 May 2008; and Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 71, 15 September 2009).
  • EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 43675/16

    ZAMMIT AND VASSALLO v. MALTA

    Indeed, the Court has on various occasions held that legislation regarding controlled rents in Malta was in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Ghigo v. Malta, no. 31122/05, §§ 69-70, 26 September 2006; Edwards v. Malta, no. 17647/04, §§ 78-79, 24 October 2006; Fleri Soler and Camilleri v. Malta, no. 35349/05, §§ 79-80, ECHR 2006-X; and Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 62, 15 September 2009).
  • EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 20287/10

    SALIBA AND OTHERS v. MALTA

    The Court considers that, in raising this plea before the domestic constitutional jurisdictions, which did not reject the claim on procedural grounds but examined the substance of it, the applicants made normal use of the remedies which were accessible to them and which related, in substance, to the facts complained of at the European level (see, mutatis mutandis, Fleri Soler and Camilleri v. Malta, no. 35349/05, §§ 39-40, ECHR 2006-X; and Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 35, 15 September 2009).
  • EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 20287/10

    SALIBA AND OTHERS v. MALTA

    Indeed, the Court has on various occasions held that various pieces of legislation regarding controlled rents in Malta were in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Ghigo v. Malta, no. 31122/05, §§ 69-70, 26 September 2006; Edwards v. Malta, no. 17647/04, §§ 78-79, 24 October 2006; Fleri Soler and Camilleri v. Malta, no. 35349/05, §§ 79-80, ECHR 2006-X; and Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 62, 15 September 2009).
  • EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 37006/13

    GOSOVIC v. CROATIA

    Not only is it not open to those landlords to repossess their flats solely on the basis of their wish to make other use of them (see, mutatis mutandis, Edwards, cited above, § 73) but their right to terminate the lease on the basis of their own need for accommodation or that of their relatives or because the protected lessee owns alternative accommodation and thus does not need protection against the termination of the lease (see, mutatis mutandis, Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 61, 15 September 2009), is considerably restricted.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht