Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=9118/80
Timestamp: 2017-03-25 13:38:47
Document Index: 75150612

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', '§ 73', '§ 17', '§ 51', '§ 34', 'Art. 1', '§ 52', '§ 55', '§ 62', '§ 43', '§ 45', '§ 48', '§ 30', '§ 35', '§ 55', '§ 44', '§ 45', '§ 59', '§ 48', '§ 185', '§ 116', '§ 54', '§ 89', '§ 71', '§ 46', '§ 55', '§ 44', '§ 73', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1']

Rechtsprechung: 9118/80 - dejure.org
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EKMR, 09.03.1983
Übersicht EGMR
Rechtsprechung EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80 Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNIProtokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1Non-violation de P1-1 (französisch)
AGOSI v. THE UNITED KINGDOMProtokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1No violation of P1-1 (englisch)
eugrz.info AGOSI gegen Vereinigtes Königreich
EKMR, 09.03.1983 - 9118/80
EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80
NJW 1989, 3079 (Ls.)
Wird zitiert von ... (158) BVerfG, 14.01.2004 - 2 BvR 564/95 Erweiterter VerfallEine strafgleiche Rechtsfolge ordnet § 73d StGB - wie unter C. I. 1. ausgeführt - ebenfalls nicht an (vgl. auch das Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte vom 24. Oktober 1986 - Nr. 14/1984/86/133 -, EuGRZ 1988, S. 513, 519 zu einer zollrechtlichen Verfallerklärung).
EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. IrlandHe had regard to the application of this test in AGOSI v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108) and Air Canada v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A) and to a "similar approach" adopted by the ECJ in cases concerning the right to property or the right to pursue a commercial activity (including Hauer v. Land Rheinland-Pfalz, Case 44/79 [1979] European Court Reports (ECR) 3727, §§ 17-30).In the alternative, the impounding of the aircraft amounted to a lawful and proportionate control of use of the applicant company's possessions in the public interest (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, pp. 17-18, § 51, and Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A, p. 16, § 34).
EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91 AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNIHowever, the three rules are not "distinct" in the sense of being unconnected: the second and third rules are concerned with enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see, among many other authorities, the AGOSI v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, p. 17, para. 48)._______________ 1. Series A no. 108._______________ 10. Judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108.The justification of an interference presupposes, according to the Court's case-law, inter alia that a fair balance between the interests of the State and those of the individual has been struck in a manner which reflects the principle of proportionality, and also that the applicant has had a reasonable opportunity of putting his case to the responsible authorities (see the AGOSI v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, pp. 18-19, paras. 54-55).
BGH, 14.09.2005 - IV ZR 198/04 Wegfall des Anspruchs auf Zahlung eines Sterbegeldes in der VBLSJedenfalls ist die Streichung des Sterbegeldes unter Berücksichtigung des damit von der Beklagten verfolgten Ziels gerechtfertigt, insbesondere nicht unverhältnismäßig, und genügt damit den Anforderungen an eine Einschränkung des durch Art. 1 1. ZP garantierten Eigentumsschutzes (…vgl. dazu EGMR - Lenz/Deutschland - aaO; EGMR…, Urteil vom 23. November 2000 - König von Griechenland - NJW 2002, 45 unter Rdn. 89; EGMR, Urteil vom 24. Oktober 1986 - AGOSI/UK - EuGRZ 1988, 513 unter Rdn. 52).
EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90 FISCHER c. AUTRICHE[14] AGOSI v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108.[51] AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, p. 20, para.
EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86 FREDIN c. SUEDE (N° 1)In addition, they alleged, with reference to the AGOSI judgment (24 October 1986, Series A no. 108), that, as a result of the absence of any judicial review, the Swedish system did not contain adequate safeguards against abuse to meet the procedural requirements embodied in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) and that, in their case, the decision had in fact been unlawful and arbitrary.In determining whether this requirement is met, the Court recognises that the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question (see the above-mentioned AGOSI judgment, Series A no. 108, p. 18, § 52).
EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 3503/08 ÜNSPED PAKET SERVISI SAN. VE TIC. A.S. v. BULGARIAIn any event, the Court notes that even in situations where the State confiscates the tools or proceeds of a crime, it can only deprive someone of their property in accordance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which include requisite procedural guarantees (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 55 and § 62, Series A no. 108, where the Court held that the applicable domestic procedures had to ensure either that reasonable account was taken of the behaviour of the applicant company or to afford it a reasonable opportunity to put its case; see also Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 43, ECHR 2001-VII, and Grayson and Barnham v. the United Kingdom, nos. 19955/05 and 15085/06, § 45, 23 September 2008).The Court has repeatedly held that the second and third rules must be construed in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see, among many authorities, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 48, Series A no. 108; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 30, Series A no. 316-A; Bowler International Unit v. France, no. 1946/06, § 35, 23 July 2009).In ascertaining whether the above condition has been satisfied, the Court must take a comprehensive view of the applicable procedures (see AGOSI, cited above, § 55, Series A no. 108; Bowler International Unit v. France, no. 1946/06, §§ 44-45, 23 July 2009; Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV; Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, § 59, 1 April 2010).
EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 42079/12 B.K.M. LOJISTIK TASIMACILIK TICARET LIMITED SIRKETI v. SLOVENIAThe second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see, among many authorities, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 48, Series A no. 108, and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 185, ECHR 2012).Some of these cases (most notably Air Canada v. the United Kingdom (5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A) and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom (24 October 1986, Series A no. 108)) are referred to in the judgment.
EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 14902/04 OAO Jukos Neftjanaja Kompanija ./. Russland(b) an applicant's conduct contributed to his detriment (see Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 116, ECHR 2000-I) (c) the applicant behaved unfairly - mala fides (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 54, Series A no. 108, Sarmin and Sarmina v. Russia (dec.), no. 58830/00, 22 November 2005, Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 89, 20 June 2002); (d) there is no consensus among the Contracting States, i.e. governments employ different measures under similar circumstances (see T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, §§ 71-72, 16 December 1999), etc. Moreover, the ECHR considers the specific economic and other circumstances in which the governmental action being assessed was carried out (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 46, Series A no. 98).
EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93 IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALYLa Cour souligne que, pendant cette phase administrative, aucune juridiction ne pouvait se prononcer sur l'impact que les retards provoqués par ce système pouvaient avoir sur le cas d"espèce, car l'action du préfet ayant engendré ces retards était autorisée et délimitée par la législation contestée (paragraphe 42 ci-dessus ; voir, a contrario, les arrêts AGOSI c. Royaume Uni du 24 octobre 1986, série A n° 108, p. 19, § 55 ; Air Canada c. Royaume Uni du 5 mai 1995, série A n° 316-A, p. 18, §§ 44-46 ;… et Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH c. Pays-Bas du 23 février 1995, série A n° 306-B, p. 53, §§ 73-74).
EGMR, 30.08.2007 - 44302/02 J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LTD ET J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LAND LTD c. ROYAUME-UNI
EGMR, 20.03.2007 - 5410/03 TYSIAC c. POLOGNE
EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96 BAUMANN v. FRANCE
EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88 HENTRICH v. FRANCE
EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 75909/01 Sud Fondi S.r.l. u.a. ./. Italien
EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 9072/02 WISNIEWSKA v. POLAND
EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 57785/00 ZLINSAT, SPOL. S R.O. v. BULGARIA
EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10522/83 Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich
EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84 ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)
EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 5457/03 JUCYS v. LITHUANIA
EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 30352/03 ISMAYILOV v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95 JOKELA v. FINLAND
EKMR, 01.04.1993 - 18465/91 AIR CANADA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 57404/08 LAVRECHOV v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 66529/11 N.K.M. v. HUNGARY
EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 16133/08 INSANOV v. AZERBAIJAN
EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 6334/05 SÜZER ET EKSEN HOLDING A.S. c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 32277/07 ÐEKIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 49570/11 GÁLL v. HUNGARY
EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07 S.C. FIERCOLECT IMPEX S.R.L. v. ROMANIA
EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 41838/11 R.Sz. v. HUNGARY
EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 52024/99 ARCURI ET TROIS AUTRES contre l'ITALIE
EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 63362/09 RUMMI v. ESTONIA
EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 6219/08 PAULET v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 3330/12 JGK STATYBA LTD AND GUSELNIKOVAS v. LITHUANIA
EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 20496/02 SILICKIENE v. LITHUANIA
EGMR, 13.12.2007 - 40998/98 ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN SHIPPING LINES c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 18.09.2006 - 26315/03 M. Y. D. gegen Deutschland
EGMR, 13.09.2001 - 45036/98 BOSPHORUS HAVA YOLLARI TURIZM VE TICARET AS v. IRELAND
EGMR, 04.09.2001 - 52439/99 RIELA ET AUTRES contre l'ITALIE
EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05 GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 38963/08 SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA DEL UCIEZA c. ESPAGNE
EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08 MEROT D.O.O. AND STORITVE TIR D.O.O. v. CROATIA
EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 36921/07 MIROSLAW GARLICKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 24.02.2011 - 33908/04 BENET PRAHA, SPOL. S R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
EGMR, 16.11.2010 - 24768/06 PERDIGAO v. PORTUGAL
EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 28336/02 GRIFHORST c. FRANCE
EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 31004/02 SUN v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 52391/99 RAMSAHAI AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 25333/03 PETER c. ROUMANIE
EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 72034/01 DRUZSTEVNI ZALOZNA PRIA AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 44277/98 STRETCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02 YILDIRIM contre l'ITALIE
EGMR, 05.12.2002 - 53871/00 Individualbeschwerde einer mit einer Spende der PDS begünstigten …
EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 26780/95 ESCOUBET v. BELGIUM
EKMR, 09.03.1989 - 11763/85 BANER c. SUEDE
EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 1660/03 PLECHKOV c. ROUMANIE
EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 34129/03 MICROINTELECT OOD v. BULGARIA
EGMR, 27.09.2012 - 7398/07 CHADZITASKOS AND FRANTA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 28979/07 RUSPOLI MORENES c. ESPAGNE
EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 9702/04 GABRIC v. CROATIA
EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 15112/07 MILOSAVLJEV v. SERBIA
EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 576/07 PEKER ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE ET AUTRES REQUETES
EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 18240/03 UZAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 31555/05 BENET CZECH, SPOL. S R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 69917/01 SACCOCCIA v. AUSTRIA
EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 15084/03 BIMER S.A. v. MOLDOVA
EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 44302/02 J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LTD c. ROYAUME-UNI
EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 3540/03 MASA INVEST GROUP v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 28078/95 C.M. contre la FRANCE
EGMR, 23.02.1995 - 15375/89 GASUS DOSIER- UND FÖRDERTECHNIK GmbH v. THE NETHERLANDS
EKMR, 09.03.1989 - 11766/85 LÖPARÖ FISKEVATTENÄGAREFÖRENING v. SWEDEN
EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 12951/11 VEITS v. ESTONIA
EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 49445/07 SOYUER ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 69917/01 SACCOCCIA c. AUTRICHE
EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 25921/02 FEDORENKO v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 28.10.2004 - 399/02 BOCELLARI ET RIZZA c. ITALIE
EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 50924/99 BAHIA NOVA S.A. contre l'ESPAGNE
EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 30337/96 HILTUNEN v. FINLAND
EKMR, 22.01.1996 - 24196/94 O'REILLY v. IRELAND
EKMR, 08.09.1988 - 13021/87 RUIZ MATEOS v. the UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 300/11 C.P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 22653/08 VASILEVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 74681/11 SULEJMANI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 20792/07 GÜLER c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 44205/02 AKTAS ELEKTRIK TIC. A.S. c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 10307/04 CERNEA ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 40381/05 LANCHID HITEL ES FAKTOR ZRT. v. HUNGARY
EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 16903/03 DENISOVA AND MOISEYEVA v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 3991/03 BULVES AD v. BULGARIA
EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 38238/04 FORMINSTER ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 28551/04 ADAMCZYK v. POLAND
EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 68443/01 BAKLANOV v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 58254/00 FRIZEN v. RUSSIA
EKMR, 14.12.1987 - 12033/86 FREDIN v. SWEDEN
EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 484/08 RADU c. ROUMANIE
EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 36586/08 SOMMER c. ITALIE
EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 71835/01 PATRIKOVA v. BULGARIA
EGMR, 23.07.2009 - 1946/06 BOWLER INTERNATIONAL UNIT c. FRANCE
EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 39973/03 MOON c. FRANCE
EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 44614/06 TAS c. BELGIQUE
EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 6497/04 KIRATLI c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 1905/05 PERRE ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
EGMR, 02.10.2006 - 29858/03 DUCHONOVA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
EGMR, 09.05.2006 - 54508/00 SAARENPAAN LOMA KY v. FINLAND
EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 37562/02 SAGIR c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 36288/97 FRYCKMAN AND FRYCKMAN YHTIO OY v. FINLAND
EGMR, 07.06.2005 - 58572/00 MORABITO et 3 AUTRES c. ITALIE
EGMR, 10.03.2005 - 47063/99 VASILEV c. BULGARIE
EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 73369/01 RAJNAI v. HUNGARY
EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 32221/02 LICATA contre l'ITALIE
EGMR, 16.03.2004 - 8719/02 FRANSSON and FRANSSON v. SWEDEN
EGMR, 02.09.2003 - 53951/00 ARDEX S.A. contre la FRANCE
EGMR, 27.06.2002 - 41661/98 BUTLER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 26.06.2002 - 41661/98 BUTLER contre le ROYAUME-UNI
EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 54999/00 HONECKER, AXEN, TEUBNER and JOSSIFOV v. GERMANY
EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 53991/00 HONECKER, AXEN, TEUBNER et JOSSIFOV contre l'ALLEMAGNE
EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 55091/00 FINKELBERG contre la LETTONIE
EGMR, 14.03.2000 - 33592/96 BAUMANN contre la FRANCE
EGMR, 25.05.1999 - 29021/95 J.K. v. SLOVAKIA
EKMR, 20.10.1997 - 32013/96 REISZ c. ALLEMAGNE
EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 28778/95 KIGHTLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EKMR, 17.05.1995 - 23193/94 KOSEK v. AUSTRIA
EKMR, 01.12.1993 - 18778/91 S. v. AUSTRIA
EKMR, 09.03.1989 - 11764/85 BRAUNERHIELM v. SWEDEN
EKMR, 09.03.1989 - 11765/85 NILSSON v. SWEDEN
EKMR, 09.03.1989 - 11767/85 LEIJONHUFVUD v. SWEDEN
EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 39689/05 ATEV v. BULGARIA
EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 38685/06 OKYAY c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 13242/05 UZEL c. TURQUIE ET AUTRES REQUETES
EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 43153/08 GOLEBIEWSKA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 63846/09 LORIEL c. FRANCE
EGMR, 02.09.2008 - 6321/03 SIMONJAN-HEIKINHEIMO v. FINLAND
EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 41909/02 BJORKLUND v. FINLAND
EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 13844/02 MAUPAS ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 41812/04 MANCINI c. ITALIE
EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 41674/98 JARVI-ERISTYS OY v. FINLAND
EGMR, 10.02.2004 - 56054/00 WEBB v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 14.01.2003 - 58229/00 GALLEGO ZAFRA contre l'ESPAGNE
EGMR, 25.05.1999 - 42396/98 OIKODOMIKOS SYNETAIRISMOS YGEIONOMIKON "I YGEIA", KARKAVELAS, VAMVALIS ET …
EGMR, 23.03.1999 - 45522/99 GUEDOU contre la FRANCE
EGMR, 15.12.1998 - 27819/95 VERCAMBRE contre la SUISSE
EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 32047/96 T.C. v. SWEDEN
EKMR, 14.01.1998 - 33456/96 ZVOLENSKY AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
EKMR, 11.09.1997 - 27894/95 BÄCKSTRÖM v. FINLAND
EKMR, 03.03.1997 - 22025/93 KETO-TOKOI AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 26265/92 GÜNTHER v. SWEDEN
EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 21342/93 E., I. AND M. v. FINLAND
EKMR, 30.11.1994 - 21354/93 SCHNEIDER AUSTRIA GmbH v. AUSTRIA
EKMR, 04.10.1989 - 11899/85 WASAGRILLEN KNUT NYLUND AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN
EKMR, 09.05.1988 - 12258/86 SKÄRBY v. SWEDEN
EKMR, 08.03.1988 - 11540/85 KARNI v. SWEDEN
EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 45176/99 SCHMELZER v. GERMANY
EGMR, 25.05.1999 - 37884/97 BONDA v. SLOVAKIA
EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 30323/96 THORSTEINSSON AND MORTHENS v. ICELAND
EKMR, 18.10.1994 - 18696/91 ABU SHAER v. AUSTRIA
EKMR, 07.05.1990 - 14837/89 JONES v. the UNITED KINGDOM
Übersicht EKMR
Rechtsprechung EKMR, 09.03.1983 - 9118/80 Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
AGOSI (ALLGEMEINE GOLD und SILBERSCHEIDEANSTALT A.G.) c. ROYAUME-UNIArt. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1Recevable (französisch)
AGOSI (ALLGEMEINE GOLD und SILBERSCHEIDEANSTALT A.G.) v. the UNITED KINGDOMArt. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1Admissible (englisch)