Weitere Entscheidungen unten: EGMR, 29.07.2004 | EGMR, 30.01.2003 | EGMR, 06.12.2001

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,21548
EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00 (https://dejure.org/2006,21548)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.03.2006 - 59532/00 (https://dejure.org/2006,21548)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. März 2006 - 59532/00 (https://dejure.org/2006,21548)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,21548) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • NJW 2007, 347
  • NVwZ 2007, 795 (Ls.)
 
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 ... (171)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

    ARTICO c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    Admittedly, the reason prompting an objection to admissibility sometimes comes to light after the decision accepting the application: for example, a reversal of domestic case-law may disclose the existence of a hitherto unknown remedy or an applicant may formulate a new complaint whose admissibility the Government have not yet had the opportunity of contesting (see, among other authorities, the Artico v. Italy judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, pp. 13-14, § 27).
  • EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84

    CIULLA v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    "44. The Court notes at the outset that it has jurisdiction to take cognisance of preliminary pleas of this kind if and in so far as the respondent State has already raised them before the Commission to the extent that their nature and the circumstances permitted; if that condition is not satisfied, the Government are estopped from raising the matter before the Court (see, among many other authorities, the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, pp. 29-31, §§ 47-55, and the Ciulla v. Italy judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 148, p. 14, § 28).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92

    DIKME c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    The Court reaffirmed the above line of case-law in Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 44 and 45, ECHR 2000-VIII:.
     
  • EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

    WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    Secondly, the Court has already held that it is not open to it to set aside the application of another admissibility criterion, namely the six-month rule, solely because a Government has not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
  • EGMR, 28.02.2002 - 59109/00

    JOVANOVIC contre la CROATIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    The present case could not be distinguished from Jovanovic v. Croatia ((dec.), no. 59109/00, ECHR 2002-III).
  • EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 16837/02

    OSTOJIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    As to the applicant's argument that the termination of her tenancy resulted in a continuing situation (see paragraph 58 above), the Court reiterates that the deprivation of an individual's home or property is in principle an instantaneous act and does not produce a continuing situation of "deprivation" in respect of the rights concerned (see, inter alia, Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII, and, mutatis mutandis, Ostojic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 16837/02, ECHR 2002-IX).
  • EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

    YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    In conclusion, while it is true that from the ratification date onwards all of the State's acts and omissions must conform to the Convention (see YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 40, Series A no. 319-A), the Convention imposes no specific obligation on the Contracting States to provide redress for wrongs or damage caused prior to that date (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 38, ECHR 2004-IX).
  • EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 33071/96

    MALHOUS c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    As to the applicant's argument that the termination of her tenancy resulted in a continuing situation (see paragraph 58 above), the Court reiterates that the deprivation of an individual's home or property is in principle an instantaneous act and does not produce a continuing situation of "deprivation" in respect of the rights concerned (see, inter alia, Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII, and, mutatis mutandis, Ostojic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 16837/02, ECHR 2002-IX).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

    SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    After the momentous decision in Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy ([GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, ECHR 2000-VIII) this purpose gained considerably in its significance.
  • EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 44912/98

    KOPECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    In conclusion, while it is true that from the ratification date onwards all of the State's acts and omissions must conform to the Convention (see YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 40, Series A no. 319-A), the Convention imposes no specific obligation on the Contracting States to provide redress for wrongs or damage caused prior to that date (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 38, ECHR 2004-IX).
  • EGMR, 12.11.2008 - 34503/97

    Demir und Baykara ./. Türkei - Streikrecht für Beamte

    That being said, the Court notes that, even if there had been estoppel, it could not have avoided examining this issue, which goes to its jurisdiction, the extent of which is determined by the Convention itself, in particular by Article 32, and not by the parties' submissions in a particular case (see, mutatis mutandis, Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, §§ 63-69, ECHR 2006-....).
  • EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

    XERO FLOR w POLSCE sp. z o. o. - Unabhängigkeit der polnischen Gerichte

    However, since this is a matter which goes to the Court's jurisdiction, the Court may examine it of its own motion (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III; and Mirovni Institut v. Slovenia, no. 32303/13, § 27, 13 March 2018).
  • VGH Hessen, 11.02.2015 - 29 C 1241/12

    Der Kläger zu 1. war bis Ende 1995 Eigentümer des Hausgrundstücks A...straße ... …

    Es besteht danach auch nicht die Möglichkeit, diese Frist nur deshalb nicht anzuwenden, weil eine Regierung auf dieser Grundlage keine prozessuale Einrede vorgebracht hat (…vgl. Urteile vom 20. Januar 2011 - 21980/06 u.a. -, juris Rn. 75 und vom 8. März 2006 - 59532/00 -, NJW 2007, 347).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 59532/00   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2004,31730
EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 59532/00 (https://dejure.org/2004,31730)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 29.07.2004 - 59532/00 (https://dejure.org/2004,31730)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 29. Juli 2004 - 59532/00 (https://dejure.org/2004,31730)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,31730) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    BLECIC v. CROATIA

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 36, Art. 36 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    No violation of Art. 8 No violation of P1-1 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

  • EKMR, 27.02.1997 - 26530/95

    KANEVA v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 59532/00
    In particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (see Kaneva v. Bulgaria, no. 26530/95, Commission decision of 27 February 1997).
  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

    HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 59532/00
    It follows that the Court's task is not to substitute itself for the domestic authorities in the exercise of their responsibilities regarding termination of the specially protected tenancies in Croatia, but rather to review, in the light of the Convention, the decisions taken by those authorities in the exercise of their margin of appreciation (see, mutatis mutandis, Hokkanen v. Finland, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 20, § 55, and Elsholz v. Germany, no. 25735/94, ECHR 2000-VIII, p. 363, § 48).
  • EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

    SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 59532/00
    Furthermore, for the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to be satisfied, an interference with the individual's rights under this provision must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 26, § 69; Scollo v. Italy, judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 315-C, p. 53, § 32).
     
  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 59532/00
    This margin is afforded both to the domestic legislature ("in accordance with the law") and to the bodies, judicial amongst others, that are called upon to interpret and apply the laws in force (see, mutatis mutandis, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 22, § 48).
  • EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10522/83

    Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 59532/00
    Although this principle was originally set forth in the context of complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - in, for example, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 32, § 46; and Mellacher and Others v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169, p. 25, § 45 - the Court, bearing in mind that the Convention and its Protocols must be interpreted as a whole, considers that the State enjoys an equally wide margin of appreciation as regards respect for the home in circumstances such as those prevailing in the present case, in the context of Article 8. Thus, the Court will accept the judgment of the domestic authorities as to what is necessary in a democratic society unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation, that is, unless the measure employed is manifestly disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
  • EGMR, 14.09.1987 - 9063/80

    GILLOW c. ROYAUME-UNI (ARTICLE 50)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 59532/00
    In order to determine whether the interference was justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8, the Court must examine in turn whether it was "in accordance with the law", whether it had an aim that was legitimate under that paragraph and whether it was "necessary in a democratic society" for the aforesaid aim (see Gillow v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 124-C, p. 20, § 48).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 59532/00   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2003,34370
EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 59532/00 (https://dejure.org/2003,34370)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30.01.2003 - 59532/00 (https://dejure.org/2003,34370)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30. Januar 2003 - 59532/00 (https://dejure.org/2003,34370)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,34370) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

  • EGMR, 29.06.2000 - 47634/99

    KADIKIS contre la LETTONIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 59532/00
    204, 208 and Kadikis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 47634/99, 29 June 2000 and Jovanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 59109/00, 28 February 2002, ECHR - 2002...).
  • EGMR, 28.02.2002 - 59109/00

    JOVANOVIC contre la CROATIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 59532/00
    204, 208 and Kadikis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 47634/99, 29 June 2000 and Jovanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 59109/00, 28 February 2002, ECHR - 2002...).
  • EKMR, 13.12.1982 - 9453/81

    X. c. PORTUGAL

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 59532/00
    It recalls that in accordance with the generally recognised rules of international law, the Convention only governs, for each Contracting Party, facts subsequent to its entry into force with regard to that Party (see, for example, X. v. Portugal, application no. 9453/81, Commission decision of 13 December 1982, Decisions and Reports (DR) 31 pp.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 06.12.2001 - 59532/00   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2001,30755
EGMR, 06.12.2001 - 59532/00 (https://dejure.org/2001,30755)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.12.2001 - 59532/00 (https://dejure.org/2001,30755)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. Dezember 2001 - 59532/00 (https://dejure.org/2001,30755)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,30755) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

  • EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

    SCHENK c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2001 - 59532/00
    Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see the Schenk v. Austria judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45-46 and Garcia Ruiz v. Spain, no. 30544/96, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-I, § 28).
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