Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 27.04.2016 - 9074/07 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,8587) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MULLAI ET AUTRES CONTRE L'ALBANIE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MULLAI AND OTHERS AGAINST ALBANIA
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 9074/07
- EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9074/07
- EGMR, 27.04.2016 - 9074/07
Wird zitiert von ... (8)
- EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 44789/07
REXHEPI SH.P.K. v. ALBANIA
The Court finds that the planning permit coupled with the subsequently issued building permit constituted "possessions" for the applicant company (see Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, §§ 98-99, 23 March 2010). - EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 77668/14
IMERI v. CROATIA
When speaking of "law", Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alludes to a concept which comprises statutory law as well as case-law and implies qualitative requirements, notably those of accessibility and foreseeability (see, for example, Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, § 60, 29 March 2011, with further references to Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, § 113, 23 March 2010; Spacek, s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic, no. 26449/95, § 54, 9 November 1999; and Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, no. 24638/94, § 64, ECHR 2000-VI). - EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 37462/09
ZAJA v. CROATIA
This principle was initially enunciated in the context of complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the purposes of establishing whether an interference with the right of property was foreseeable and thus "provided for by law" within the meaning of that Article (see Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 31524/96, § 58, ECHR 2000-VI; Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, no. 24638/94, § 65, ECHR 2000-VI; Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, §§ 115-117, 23 March 2010; Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 18768/05, §§ 116-118, 27 May 2010; Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, § 67, 29 March 2011; and Matic and Polonia d.o.o. v. Serbia (dec.), no. 23001/08, § 47, 23 June 2015).
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23987/05
KOWALCZYK v. POLAND
The Court has already held, in the context of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the Contracting States have an obligation to organise their legal system so as to avoid the adoption of discordant judgments (see Vrioni and Others v. Albania, no. 2141/03, § 58, 24 March 2009, and Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, § 86, 23 March 2010) and that conflicting decisions in similar cases stemming from the same court which, in addition, is the court of last resort in the matter, may, in the absence of a mechanism which ensures consistency, breach the principle of legal certainty inherent in that Article (see, for example, Beian v. Romania (no. 1), no. 30658/05, §§ 36-39, ECHR 2007-XIII; Tudor Tudor v. Romania, no. 21911/03, § 29, 24 March 2009; and Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 23530/02, §§ 47-53, 2 July 2009). - EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 23001/08
MATIC AND POLONIA DOO v. SERBIA
Where manifestly divergent case-law, concerning the same issue, interferes with the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions and no reasonable explanation is given for this divergence, such interferences cannot be considered lawful for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Inconsistent case-law had been deemed to lack the required precision to enable individuals to foresee the consequences of their actions (see, among other authorities, Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, § 67, 29 March 2011; Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, no. 24638/94, § 65, ECHR 2000-VI; Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, §§ 115-117, 23 March 2010; and Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 18768/05, §§ 116-118, 27 May 2010). - EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 13488/07
BREZOVEC v. CROATIA
When speaking of "law", Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alludes to a concept which comprises statutory law as well as case-law and implies qualitative requirements, notably those of accessibility and foreseeability (see, for example, Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, § 113, 23 March 2010; Spacek, s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic, no. 26449/95, § 54, 9 November 1999; and Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, no. 24638/94, § 64, ECHR 2000-VI). - EGMR, 28.01.2021 - 43326/13
GROZDANIC AND GRSKOVIC-GROZDANIC v. CROATIA
When speaking of "law", Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alludes to a concept which comprises statutory law as well as case-law and implies qualitative requirements, notably those of accessibility and foreseeability (see, for example, Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, § 60, 29 March 2011, with further references to Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, § 113, 23 March 2010; ? pacek, s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic, no. 26449/95, § 54, 9 November 1999; and Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, no. 24638/94, § 64, ECHR 2000-VI). - EGMR, 10.10.2019 - 7834/12
LOPAC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
When speaking of "law", Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alludes to a concept which comprises statutory law as well as case-law and implies qualitative requirements, notably those of accessibility and foreseeability (see, for example, Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, § 60, 29 March 2011 with further references to Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, § 113, 23 March 2010; and Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, no. 24638/94, § 64, ECHR 2000-VI).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9074/07 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55471) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MULLAI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
Art. 41 MRK
(englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Mullai and Others v. Albania
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 9074/07
- EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9074/07
- EGMR, 27.04.2016 - 9074/07
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 53487/99
MERIAKRI v. MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9074/07
As regards legal costs and expenses, the Court notes that it has a discretion to award legal costs when it strikes out an application (see Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court and, for example, M.C.E.A. Voorhuis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 28692/06, 3 March 2009; Shevanova v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 58822/00, §§ 52-56, 7 December 2007; Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia [GC], no. 60654/00, §§ 130-133, ECHR 2007-I; and Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99, § 33, 1 March 2005). - EGMR, 03.03.2009 - 28692/06
VOORHUIS v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9074/07
As regards legal costs and expenses, the Court notes that it has a discretion to award legal costs when it strikes out an application (see Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court and, for example, M.C.E.A. Voorhuis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 28692/06, 3 March 2009; Shevanova v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 58822/00, §§ 52-56, 7 December 2007; Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia [GC], no. 60654/00, §§ 130-133, ECHR 2007-I; and Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99, § 33, 1 March 2005). - EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 13136/07
RACU v. MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9074/07
Moreover, there is nothing to prevent a respondent Government from submitting a unilateral declaration relating, as in the instant case, to the reserved Article 41 procedure (see Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova (just satisfaction - striking out), no. 21151/04, § 10, 17 May 2011; and Racu v. Moldova (just satisfaction - striking out), no. 13136/07, § 17, 20 April 2010).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 9074/07 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63452) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MULLAI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Just satisfaction reserved (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 9074/07
- EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9074/07
- EGMR, 27.04.2016 - 9074/07
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 9074/07
The third rule recognises that the States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest, by enforcing such laws as they deem necessary for the purpose (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52). - EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95
FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 9074/07
At the same time it requires in principle that the complaints intended to be made subsequently at international level should have been aired before [the appropriate domestic] courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among many other authorities, Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III, and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I). - EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84
TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 9074/07
In the case of non-physical assets, the Court has taken into consideration, in particular, whether the legal position in question gave rise to financial rights and interests and thus had an economic value (see, for example, Anheuser-Busch Inc., cited above, where intellectual property constituted possessions; Paeffgen GMBH v. Germany (dec.), no. 25379/04, 21688/05, 21722/05 and 21770/05, 18 September 2007, in which the right to use or dispose of internet domains constituted possessions; Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, where the granting of a commercial operating licence by the authorities constituted possessions; and Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, in which licences to serve alcoholic beverages constituted possessions).
- EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87
PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 9074/07
In the case of non-physical assets, the Court has taken into consideration, in particular, whether the legal position in question gave rise to financial rights and interests and thus had an economic value (see, for example, Anheuser-Busch Inc., cited above, where intellectual property constituted possessions; Paeffgen GMBH v. Germany (dec.), no. 25379/04, 21688/05, 21722/05 and 21770/05, 18 September 2007, in which the right to use or dispose of internet domains constituted possessions; Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, where the granting of a commercial operating licence by the authorities constituted possessions; and Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, in which licences to serve alcoholic beverages constituted possessions). - EGMR, 28.04.2004 - 56679/00
AZINAS c. CHYPRE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 9074/07
At the same time it requires in principle that the complaints intended to be made subsequently at international level should have been aired before [the appropriate domestic] courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among many other authorities, Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III, and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I). - EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84
ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 9074/07
The Court finds that the interference must be considered as a control of the use of the applicants' property falling within the scope of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Sporrong and Lönnroth, cited above, §§ 62 - 64; Tre Traktörer AB, cited above, § 55; and Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, § 54, Series A no. 163). - EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 33771/02
DRIZA c. ALBANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 9074/07
By giving a number of contradictory decisions at several levels of jurisdiction the Albanian authorities demonstrated a shortcoming in the judicial system for which they are responsible (see, mutatis mutandis, Gjonbocari and Others v. Albania, no. 10508/02, §§ 66-67, 23 October 2007; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 145, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Driza v. Albania, no. 33771/02, § 69, ECHR 2007-XII (extracts)).
- EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 26755/10
Verpflichtung der Mutter einer in Australien geborenen Tochter zum Umzug nach …
Der Gerichtshof, der Herr über die rechtliche Würdigung des Sachverhalts ist (siehe Mullai u.a../. Albanien , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 9074/07, Rdnr. 73, 23. März 2010), ist der Auffassung, dass die Rügen der Beschwerdeführerinnen nach Artikel 8 der Konvention zu prüfen sind, der wie folgt lautet:.