ERNEWEIN and Others v Germany - 14849/08 [2009] ECHR 867 (12 May 2009)

ERNEWEIN and Others v Germany - 14849/08 [2009] ECHR 867 (12 May 2009)

The applicants' complaints were inadmissible because the acts complained of occurred before the Convention entered into force (ratione temporis); the association lacked victim status (ratione personae); the individual applicants had no legitimate expectation of compensation under national law (ratione materiae); and the discrimination claim did not fall within the ambit of the Convention or Protocol No. 1.

Citation
[2009] ECHR 867
Parties
Applicants: Ernewein and Others; Respondent: Germany
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
12 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility
Outcome
Application declared inadmissible
Legal Topics
Admissibility, Right to Property, Discrimination, Victim Status, Compensation for Nazi Persecution
Human Rights Law International Law Admissibility Right to Property Discrimination Victim Status Compensation for Nazi Persecution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernewein and Others

Applicants

Germany

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' complaints are admissible under the European Convention on Human Rights and Protocol No. 1
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have victim status
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have a legitimate expectation of compensation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' complaints were inadmissible because the acts complained of occurred before the Convention entered into force (ratione temporis); the association lacked victim status (ratione personae); the individual applicants had no legitimate expectation of compensation under national law (ratione materiae); and the discrimination claim did not fall within the ambit of the Convention or Protocol No. 1.

Court Disposition

Application declared inadmissible