Rechtsprechung
| RG, 03.10.1896 - Rep. V. 83/96 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Wolters Kluwer(Abodienst, Leitsatz/Tenor frei) (Leitsatz und Volltext)
Auseinandersetzungssachen.
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Papierfundstellen
- RGZ 40, 224
Wird zitiert von ... (6)
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 6303/04
BORENSTEIN AND OTHERS v. POLAND
That question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court in the Resolution of 25 October 1996, no. III CZP 83/96, and the District Court applied that conclusion to the present case.It noted that the Supreme Court's Resolution of 25 October 1996, no. III CZP 83/96 allowed the State Treasury to count towards the period of adverse possession the period throughout which the State had exercised the right to dispose of the property "like a property owner" on the basis of a judicial decision which was quashed after the period of adverse possession had expired.
The Regional Court noted, however, that as the Supreme Court had underlined in its Resolution no. III CZP 83/96, and by contrast to the above situation, adjudication by civil courts did not amount to State sovereign interference in private-law relations since the courts were established to apply the law in civil cases.
In its Resolution No. III CZP 83/96 of 25 October 1996 (published in OSNC 1997/5/47), the Supreme Court held that:.
On this apparently critical point for the determination of the present case the domestic courts relied on the established case-law of the Supreme Court (Resolution of 25 October 1996, no. III CZP 83/96).
- EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 37727/05
WEITZ v. POLAND
According to another resolution of the Supreme Court of 25 October 1999 (III CZP 83/96), the State Treasury could acquire ownership of a property by adverse possession, if it possessed it on the strength of a judicial decision later quashed in an extraordinary appeal procedure.The domestic courts further relied on the established case-law of the Supreme Court (Resolution of 25 October 1999, no. III CZP 83/96).
- EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 61503/14
J.M. v. AUSTRIA
According to the case-law of the criminal courts, an allegation that an expert had reached the wrong conclusion did not mean that the subject matter was "particularly difficult" within the meaning of this provision (see judgment of the Supreme Court of 12 June 1996, 13 Os 83/96).
- EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 25333/06
EUROPAPRESS HOLDING D.O.O. v. CROATIA
- EGMR - 61673/14 (anhängig)
MEGYMOREZ v. AUSTRIA
According to the case-law of the criminal courts an allegation that an expert had reached the wrong conclusion did not mean that the subject matter was "particularly difficult' within the meaning of this provision (see judgement of the Supreme Court of 12 June 1996, 13 Os 83/96). - EGMR - 64583/14 (anhängig)
XANDER v. AUSTRIA
According to the case-law of the criminal courts an allegation that an expert had reached the wrong conclusion did not mean that the subject matter was "particularly difficult' within the meaning of this provision (see judgement of the Supreme Court of 12 June 1996, 13 Os 83/96).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".