Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOROTYUK v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Positive obligations;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just ...

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 74663/17

  The Court reiterates that protection of intellectual property rights, including the protection of copyright, falls within the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 72, ECHR 2007-I).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 74663/17

  The Court, being the master of characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 114, 20 March 2018) finds it appropriate to examine the applicant's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, §§ 45-46, 13 December 2016).
• EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 51151/10

  BASYUK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 74663/17

  In this context the Court also observes that domestic law allowed a civil claim to be lodged within the framework of criminal proceedings only after a suspect or accused had been identified (see paragraph 24 above; see also, for example, Afanasyev v. Ukraine, no. 38722/02, § 77, 5 April 2005, and Basyuk v. Ukraine, no. 51151/10, § 64, 5 November 2015).

• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 38722/02

  AFANASYEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 74663/17

  In this context the Court also observes that domestic law allowed a civil claim to be lodged within the framework of criminal proceedings only after a suspect or accused had been identified (see paragraph 24 above; see also, for example, Afanasyev v. Ukraine, no. 38722/02, § 77, 5 April 2005, and Basyuk v. Ukraine, no. 51151/10, § 64, 5 November 2015).
• EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 39544/05

  ZAGREBACKA BANKA D.D. CONTRE LA CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 74663/17

  The above principles have been applied in cases concerning burglary (see Keipenvardecas v. Latvia (dec.), no. 38979/03, § 64, 2 March 2010), financial offences (see Zagrebačka banka d.d. v. Croatia, no. 39544/05, §§ 276-77, 12 December 2013) and arson (see Abukauskai v. Lithuania, no. 72065/17, §§ 54-73, 25 February 2020).
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 16825/02

  PLOTINA v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 74663/17

  The Court considers, furthermore, that the possibility of bringing civil proceedings against the alleged perpetrators of a crime against property may provide the victim with a viable alternative means of securing the protection of his rights, even if criminal proceedings have not been brought to a successful conclusion, provided that a civil action has reasonable prospects of success (cf. Plotiņa v. Latvia (dec.), no. 16825/02, 3 June 2008).
• EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 38979/03

  KEIPENVARDECAS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 74663/17

  The above principles have been applied in cases concerning burglary (see Keipenvardecas v. Latvia (dec.), no. 38979/03, § 64, 2 March 2010), financial offences (see Zagrebačka banka d.d. v. Croatia, no. 39544/05, §§ 276-77, 12 December 2013) and arson (see Abukauskai v. Lithuania, no. 72065/17, §§ 54-73, 25 February 2020).
• EGMR, 25.02.2020 - 72065/17

  ABUKAUSKAI v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 74663/17

  The above principles have been applied in cases concerning burglary (see Keipenvardecas v. Latvia (dec.), no. 38979/03, § 64, 2 March 2010), financial offences (see Zagrebačka banka d.d. v. Croatia, no. 39544/05, §§ 276-77, 12 December 2013) and arson (see Abukauskai v. Lithuania, no. 72065/17, §§ 54-73, 25 February 2020).
• EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 54904/08

  PETLYOVANYY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 74663/17

  However, because no law had been enacted implementing that provision, the applicant had not had a sufficiently established claim to compensation for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (they relied on Petlyovanyy v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 54904/08, 30 September 2014).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.07.2025 - 15653/22

  BRADSHAW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In addition, in a small number of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 cases it has established the need for a criminal investigation in the event of theft or fraud (for example, Blumberga v. Latvia, no. 70930/01, §§ 67-68, 14 October 2008; Nikolay Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 21743/15, § 55, 8 November 2022; and Korotyuk v. Ukraine, no. 74663/17, §§ 36-37, 19 January 2023).
• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 53050/21

  ZLATANOV v. BULGARIA

  It should also be noted in this connection that when it comes to interferences with possessions by private persons which are of a criminal nature, the positive obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 have been held to require an effective criminal investigation, but the possibility of civil proceedings against the alleged perpetrators has also been deemed sufficient to discharge those obligations - provided, naturally, that the civil claim has a reasonable prospect of success and that that prospect is not somehow jeopardised by the absence of an effective criminal investigation (see Blumberga v. Latvia, no. 70930/01, §§ 67-68, 14 October 2008; Zagrebačka banka d.d. v. Croatia, no. 39544/05, § 276, 12 December 2013; Gherardi Martiri v. San Marino, no. 35511/20, §§ 107-08, 15 December 2022; and Korotyuk v. Ukraine, no. 74663/17, §§ 36-37, 19 January 2023).
• EGMR - 58006/21 (anhängig)

  NUZHNENKO v. UKRAINE and 3 other applications

  40104/22 and 26997/24, has there been an interference with Mr O. Kravtsov's and Mr. A. Shmyndyuk's right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the damage caused to their cars and the authorities' alleged failure to compensate for that damage (see Korotyuk v. Ukraine, no. 74663/17, §§ 36-57, 19 January 2023)? If so, has that interference been in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?.

• EGMR - 20713/18 (anhängig)

  SAVRUK v. UKRAINE

  (i) has there been an effective criminal investigation into the matter in compliance with that provision (see Nikolay Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 21743/15, §§ 54-76, 8 November 2022; Gherardi Martiri v. San Marino, no. 35511/20, §§ 105-08, 15 December 2022; and Korotyuk v. Ukraine, no. 74663/17, §§ 36-37 and 55-57, 19 January 2023)?.
• EGMR, 06.03.2025 - 7622/18

  VARITEK, TOV v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 19 The Court also observes that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 may, in certain circumstances, impose on the authorities the positive obligation to conduct an effective criminal investigation and, if appropriate, prosecution, where the interference with property rights is of a criminal nature (see Korotyuk v. Ukraine, no. 74663/17, §§ 36, 37 and 55-57, 19 January 2023).
• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 4465/18

  MOLCHANOVA v. UKRAINE

  More specifically, the domestic legislation allows a civil claim to be filed within the framework of criminal proceedings only after a suspect or accused person has been identified (see, for example, Korotyuk v. Ukraine, no. 74663/17, § 43, 19 January 2023).
• EGMR, 30.03.2023 - 45903/16

  DAVYDENKO v. UKRAINE and 3 other applications

  The relevant principles of the Court's case-law have recently been restated in Korotyuk v. Ukraine (no. 74663/17, § 36, 19 January 2023).