Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HUITSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 50131/12

  The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule" (see, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52; James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98; Iatridis v. Greece [GC], cited above; and Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 98, ECHR 2000-I).

  Finally, the applicant must not bear an individual and excessive burden (Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 73, Series A no. 52).

• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 50131/12

  Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in substance guarantees the right of property (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 63, Series A no. 31).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 50131/12

  The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule" (see, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52; James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98; Iatridis v. Greece [GC], cited above; and Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 98, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

  Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 50131/12

  The first question which therefore arises in this case is whether the applicant's claim for income tax relief, relying on section 3(2) of the DTA, constituted an "asset" attracting the guarantees of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (for a recapitulation of the general principles on the applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 see, among other references, Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 1999-II; Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 100, ECHR 2000-I; Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII; or Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 35 and 48 to 52, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 51550/07

  LAWYER PARTNERS A.S. v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 50131/12

  However, the Court does not consider it necessary to determine that issue as it finds that the applicant's complaint is in any event inadmissible for the reasons set out below (see Lawyer Partners a.s. v Slovakia, No. 51550/07, § 78, 8 October 2013).

• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 65200/12

  S c. POLOGNE

  La Cour estime opportun d'examiner si les prétentions formulées sur ce point par l'intéressée peuvent être considérées comme une créance vis-à-vis de l'État susceptible de constituer un « bien'de celle-ci aux fins de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (voir, mutatis mutandis, Huitson c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 50131/12, § 23, 13 janvier 2015).