Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=09.02.2017&Aktenzeichen=26128/04
Timestamp: 2019-07-22 19:25:15+00:00

Document:
EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 26128/04 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2017,2167
EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 26128/04 (https://dejure.org/2017,2167)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09.02.2017 - 26128/04 (https://dejure.org/2017,2167)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09. Februar 2017 - 26128/04 (https://dejure.org/2017,2167)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,2167) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Protection de la propriété (article 1 al. 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Respect des biens) (französisch)
EGMR, 27.03.2019 - 26128/04
Pour ce qui est du droit et de la pratique internes pertinents dans la présente affaire, la Cour renvoie à l'arrêt Messana c. Italie, no 26128/04, §§ 17-20, 9 février 2017.
Dans ces conditions, la Cour considère que la déclaration unilatérale litigieuse ne constitue pas une base suffisante pour conclure que le respect des droits de l'homme garantis par la Convention n'exige pas la poursuite de l'examen de la requête (voir Messana c. Italie, no 26128/04, § 26, 9 février 2017).
To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007; Facondis v. Cyprus, no. 9095/08, 27 May 2010; and Messana v. Italy, no. 26128/04, § 23, 9 February 2017).
The provisions applied in Scordino (No. 1) and Gigli Costruzioni were declared unconstitutional in 2007 and were, consequently, no longer applied in proceedings for the determination of expropriation compensation, which had to correspond to the expropriated property's full market value (see Messana v. Italy, no. 26128/04, § 18, 9 February 2017).
EGMR, 06.09.2018 - 36658/17
PEKOV ET ANDREEVA c. GRÈCE
Ce seront toutefois les circonstances particulières de la cause qui permettront de déterminer si la déclaration unilatérale offre une base suffisante pour que la Cour conclue que le respect des droits de l'homme garantis par la Convention n'exige pas qu'elle poursuive l'examen de l'affaire au sens de l'article 37 § 1 in fine (voir, parmi d'autres, Tahsin Acar c. Turquie (exceptions préliminaires) [GC], no 26307/95, § 75, CEDH 2003-VI ; Melnic c. Moldova, no 6923/03, § 14, 14 novembre 2006 ; et Messana c. Italie, no 26128/04, § 23, 9 février 2017).
The Court notes at the outset that the applicants were deprived of their property by means of an indirect or "constructive" expropriation, an interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions which the Court has previously considered, in a large number of cases, to be incompatible with the principle of lawfulness, leading to findings of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many other authorities, Carbonara et Ventura c. Italie, no 24638/94, §§ 63-73, CEDH 2000-VI; Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy, no. 58858/00, §§ 93-97, 8 December 2005; De Caterina and Others v. Italy, no. 65278/01, §§ 30-34, 28 June 2011; and, more recently, Messana v. Italy, no. 26128/04, §§ 38-43, 9 February 2017).
Pour ce qui est du droit et de la pratique internes pertinents dans la présente affaire, la Cour renvoie à son arrêt Messana c. Italie (no 26128/04, §§ 17-20, 9 février 2017).
EGMR - 51572/07
CASA NEL VERDE PRIMA S.R.L. v. ITALY and 2 other applications
Have the applicant companies been deprived of their possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, amongst many other authorities, Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy, no. 58858/00, 8 December 2005; Rivera and di Bonaventura v. Italy, no. 63869/00, 14 June 2011; Immobiliare Cerro S.A.S. v. Italy, no. 35638/03, 23 February 2006; and Messana v. Italy, no. 26128/04, 9 February 2017)?.
EGMR - 43955/09 (anhängig)
GRANA v. ITALY
Have the applicants been deprived of their possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, amongst many other authorities, Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy, no. 58858/00, 8 December 2005; Rivera and di Bonaventura v. Italy, no. 63869/00, 14 June 2011; De Caterina and Others v. Italy, no. 65278/01, 28 June 2011; and Messana v. Italy, no. 26128/04, 9 February 2017)?.
EGMR - 22915/09 (anhängig)
BRESCIANO AND OTHERS v. ITALY
EGMR - 24850/09 (anhängig)
IMMOBILIARE I.C.RE. S.R.L. v. ITALY
EGMR - 26709/15 (anhängig)
CIOCCOLONI AND OTHERS v. ITALY
EGMR - 24069/12 (anhängig)
SERINO v. ITALY
EGMR - 43275/12 (anhängig)
CONTARINO v. ITALY
EGMR - 58416/13 (anhängig)
CAMASSA v. ITALY
EGMR - 18216/15 (anhängig)
PREVIDI v. ITALY
EGMR - 14696/10 (anhängig)
QUAGLIA AND OTHERS v. ITALY
EGMR - 61126/08 (anhängig)
FASANO v. ITALY
EGMR - 11557/09 (anhängig)
APRILE v. ITALY
EGMR - 13251/09 (anhängig)
ISTITUTO DIOCESANO PER IL SOSTENTAMENTO DEL CLERO DI CAPUA v. ITALY

References: l'article 1
 § 26
 § 23
 § 18
 l'article 37
 § 1
in fine
 § 75
 § 14
 § 23