Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VUKUSIC v. CROATIA

  Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VUKUSIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 2269/06

  R. KACAPOR AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 69735/11

  Moreover, at time when the flat in question was sold to the applicant, in 1994, the Sisak Ironworks Holding was still State-owned and State-controlled (compare to Alisic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, §§ 115-117, ECHR 2014; R. Kacapor and Others v. Serbia, nos. 2269/06 et al., §§ 97 and 98, 15 January 2008; and Zastava It Turs v. Serbia (dec.), no. 24922/12, §§ 19-23, 9 April 2013).
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 24922/12

  ZASTAVA IT TURS v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 69735/11

  Moreover, at time when the flat in question was sold to the applicant, in 1994, the Sisak Ironworks Holding was still State-owned and State-controlled (compare to Alisic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, §§ 115-117, ECHR 2014; R. Kacapor and Others v. Serbia, nos. 2269/06 et al., §§ 97 and 98, 15 January 2008; and Zastava It Turs v. Serbia (dec.), no. 24922/12, §§ 19-23, 9 April 2013).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 69735/11

  It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, even in those fields where the Convention "incorporates" the rules of that law since the national authorities are, in the nature of things, particularly qualified to settle issues arising in such situations (see, mutatis mutandis, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 46, Series A no. 33).

 
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 69735/11

  In particular, there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved by any measure depriving a person of his possessions (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 38, Series A no. 332, and The Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 29979/04

  RYSOVSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 69735/11

  In the context of the revocation of a title to property which has been granted erroneously, the "good governance" principle may not only impose on the authorities an obligation to act promptly in correcting their mistake (see Moskal, cited above, § 69), but may also necessitate the payment of adequate compensation or another type of appropriate reparation to its former good-faith holder (see Pincová and Pinc, cited above, § 53; Toscuta and Others v. Romania, no. 36900/03, § 38, 25 November 2008; and Rysovskyy v. Ukraine, no. 29979/04, § 71, 20 October 2011).
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 17373/02

  ROSINSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 69735/11

  Despite the margin of appreciation given to the State the Court must nevertheless, in the exercise of its power of review, determine whether the requisite balance was maintained in a manner consonant with the applicant's right to property (see Rosinski v Poland, no. 17373/02, § 78, 17 July 2007).
• EGMR, 03.09.2009 - 17124/05

  PAVLINOVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 69735/11

  17124/05 and 17126/05, 3 September 2009).

• EGMR, 02.05.2024 - 35271/19

  THE J. PAUL GETTY TRUST AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Given the domestic courts' findings, the Court considers that the Trust's representatives had, at the very least, very weighty reasons to doubt the Statue's legitimate provenance (see, mutatis mutandis, Vukusic v. Croatia, no. 69735/11, § 66, 31 May 2016).
• EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 31686/16

  SEREGIN ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Elle rappelle sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle l'annulation rétroactive d'un titre de propriété valide constitue une privation de propriété, au sens de la deuxième phrase du premier alinéa de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (Turgut et autres c. Turquie, no 1411/03, §§ 87-88, 8 juillet 2008, Satir c. Turquie, no 36192/03, § 31, 10 mars 2009, Silahyürekli c. Turquie, no 16150/06, § 33, 26 novembre 2013, Maksymenko et Gerasymenko c. Ukraine, no 49317/07, § 50, 16 mai 2013, Vukusic c. Croatie, no 69735/11, § 50, 31 mai 2016, avec les références qui y sont citées, et Bidzhiyeva c. Russie, no 30106/10, § 61, 5 décembre 2017).
• EGMR, 18.04.2023 - 61380/15

  DEMIRAY c. TÜRKIYE

  À cet égard, la Cour rappelle que dans l'affaire Vukusic c. Croatie (no 69735/11, §§ 66 et 68, 31 mai 2016) où le titre de propriété du requérant sur un appartement avait été annulé, elle a estimé que le juste équilibre n'avait pas été rompu au motif que l'intéressé s'était vu offrir la possibilité d'obtenir une compensation adéquate, en l'occurrence le remboursement du prix de vente assorti d'intérêts moratoires ainsi qu'une indemnité couvrant tout autre dommage résultant de l'annulation alors même que l'intéressé était partiellement responsable de la défaillance ayant conduit à l'annulation.

 
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 70520/10

  BEINAROVIC AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  It requires that where an issue in the general interest is at stake, in particular when the matter affects fundamental human rights such as those involving property, the public authorities must act in good time and in an appropriate and above all consistent manner (see Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 120, ECHR 2000-I; Pyrantiene v. Lithuania, no. 45092/07, § 55, 12 November 2013; and Vukusic v. Croatia, no. 69735/11, § 64, 31 May 2016).
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 42910/08

  GAINA v. LITHUANIA

  The Court has previously held that the principle of good governance requires that any errors made by State authorities should not be remedied at the expense of individuals who have acquired property rights in good faith (see, among other authorities, Pincová and Pinc v. the Czech Republic, no. 36548/97, § 58, ECHR 2002-VIII; Radchikov v. Russia, no. 65582/01, § 50, 24 May 2007; Gashi v. Croatia, no. 32457/05, § 40, 13 December 2007; Gladysheva v. Russia, no. 7097/10, § 80, 6 December 2011; and Vukusic v. Croatia, no. 69735/11, § 64, 31 May 2016).
• EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 17254/15

  SEMENOV c. RUSSIE

  Elle rappelle sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle l'annulation rétroactive d'un titre de propriété valide constitue une privation de propriété, au sens de la deuxième phrase du premier alinéa de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (Turgut et autres c. Turquie, no 1411/03, §§ 87-88, 8 juillet 2008, Satir c. Turquie, no 36192/03, § 31, 10 mars 2009, Silahyürekli c. Turquie, no 16150/06, § 33, 26 novembre 2013, Maksymenko et Gerasymenko c. Ukraine, no 49317/07, § 50, 16 mai 2013, Vukusic c. Croatie, no 69735/11, § 50, 31 mai 2016, avec les références qui y sont citées, et Bidzhiyeva c. Russie, no 30106/10, § 61, 5 décembre 2017).
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 33955/08

  BELOVA v. RUSSIA

  Authorities should be able to correct their mistakes, but not in a situation where the individual concerned is required to bear an excessive burden (see Vuku?.ic v. Croatia, no. 69735/11, § 64, 31 May 2016, with case-law cited therein).
• EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 2625/17

  GAVRILOVA ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Elle rappelle sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle l'annulation rétroactive d'un titre de propriété valide constitue une privation de propriété, au sens de la deuxième phrase du premier alinéa de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (Turgut et autres c. Turquie, no 1411/03, §§ 87-88, 8 juillet 2008, Satir c. Turquie, no 36192/03, § 31, 10 mars 2009, Silahyürekli c. Turquie, no 16150/06, § 33, 26 novembre 2013, Maksymenko et Gerasymenko c. Ukraine, no 49317/07, § 50, 16 mai 2013, Vukusic c. Croatie, no 69735/11, § 50, 31 mai 2016, avec les références qui y sont citées, et Bidzhiyeva c. Russie, no 30106/10, § 61, 5 décembre 2017).
• EGMR - 3249/22 (anhängig)

  JELAVIC v. CROATIA

  Was the second-instance judgment ordering the applicant to vacate the flat in which he was living in breach of his right to respect for his home, guaranteed by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the domestic courts required to carry out a proportionality analysis (compare, for example, Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, 29 May 2012; Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, 22 October 2009; and Cosic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, 15 January 2009, and contrast with F.J.M. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76202/16, 6 November 2018; and Vrzic v. Croatia, no. 43777/13, §§ 59-73, 12 July 2016, and see also Vukusic v. Croatia, no. 69735/11, § 48, 31 May 2016)?.
• EGMR, 04.05.2017 - 39210/07

  OSIPKOVS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  As stated above, the "good governance" principle should not prevent public authorities from correcting their mistakes, Nonetheless, the above general principle cannot prevail in a situation where the individual concerned is required to bear an excessive burden (see, Vukusic v. Croatia, no. 69735/11, § 64, 31 May 2016, with case-law cited therein).
• EGMR - 42955/18 (anhängig)

  LAVRECKIS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2021 - 29385/11

  EKA MIKELADZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA