Click the case name for better results:

Alice Ellen Cooper-Dean Charitable Foundation v Greensleeves Owners Ltd: UTLC 12 Jun 2015

UTLC Leasehold Enfranchisement – Flat – two-stage enfranchisement – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 – paragraph 14 of Schedule 6 – paragraph 5 of Schedule 13 – paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 – section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 – article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention … Continue reading Alice Ellen Cooper-Dean Charitable Foundation v Greensleeves Owners Ltd: UTLC 12 Jun 2015

Sikuta v Hungary: ECHR 27 Jan 2015

ECHR The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – read alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention – that the imposition of 98% tax on the upper bracket of his severance payment constituted an unjustified deprivation of property, or else taxation at a disproportionate rate, with no remedy available. … Continue reading Sikuta v Hungary: ECHR 27 Jan 2015

Miscioscia v Italy: ECHR 31 Jul 2003

The applicant asserted that his rights had been infringed by the prolonged delay in returning to him possession of an apartment he had let. It had taken from 1993 to April 2001 to complete the judicial proceedings.
Held: The court had no . .

Saghinadze v Georgia: ECHR 13 Jan 2015

The taking of a cottage which had been the applicant’s home for more than ten years by the Ministry of the Interior on 1 November 2004, in addition to giving rise to a breach of Article 8 of the Convention, also constituted a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Ineta Ziemele, P 18768/05 … Continue reading Saghinadze v Georgia: ECHR 13 Jan 2015

Gasus Dosier-Und Fodertechnik Gmbh v The Netherlands: ECHR 23 Feb 1995

Even where an interference in property rights involved the complete loss of a person’s economic interest in an asset for the benefit of the State, an absence of compensation might still be compatible with Article 1. ‘The Court recalls that the . .

PM v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Jul 2005

A father complained that tax deductions which were granted to married fathers but not to unmarried fathers were discriminatory. He had paid maintenance for his daughter, but was not allowed to set the payments off against his income tax in the way . .