Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NASSAU VERZEKERING MAATSCHAPPIJ N.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (21)

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 57602/09

  Many surviving next-of-kin of persons who had lost their lives in circumstances giving rise to issues under Article 2 of the Convention have been allowed to apply as applicants in their own right (see, for example, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 1, Series A no. 324; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 1, ECHR 1999-IV; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

  KARNER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 57602/09

  The Court has also, on occasion, held that a case could be continued after the death of an applicant, and even in the absence of heirs wishing to continue, where the issues transcended the interests of the applicant and raised an important question of public interest relevant to human rights standards in Contracting States (see Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-IX; compare and contrast Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, § 32, Series A no. 287).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 57602/09

  Such, for example, have been cases in which the original applicants died during the proceedings before the Court and others with a legitimate interest (normally the applicant's heirs or next-of-kin) have taken their place (see, for example, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 7, Series A no. 35; Vocaturo v. Italy, 24 May 1991, § 2, Series A no. 206-C; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Kovacic and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos.

 
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 10890/84

  GROPPERA RADIO AG ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 57602/09

  It has, however, on occasion identified situations where it would serve no purpose to distinguish between the company and its shareholders; generally speaking, this has been the case when one person controlled all the shares in the company and provided its management (see Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, 28 March 1990, §§ 10 and 49, Series A no. 173; Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, § 42, Series A no. 222; Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey, no. 16163/90, § 21, 31 July 2003; and Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, § 40, 11 October 2007).
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 57602/09

  It has, however, on occasion identified situations where it would serve no purpose to distinguish between the company and its shareholders; generally speaking, this has been the case when one person controlled all the shares in the company and provided its management (see Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, 28 March 1990, §§ 10 and 49, Series A no. 173; Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, § 42, Series A no. 222; Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey, no. 16163/90, § 21, 31 July 2003; and Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, § 40, 11 October 2007).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 48335/99

  SANLES SANLES contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 57602/09

  Conversely, where the deceased has been an alleged victim of a violation of a right other than the substantive right protected by Article 2, the Court has generally declined to grant standing to any other person unless that person could, exceptionally, demonstrate an interest of their own (see Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, 25 August 1987, § 33, Series A no. 123; Brudnicka and Others v. Poland, no. 54723/00, §§ 30-31, ECHR 2005-II; Ressegatti v. Switzerland, no. 17671/02, § 25, 13 July 2006; and Gradinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, §§ 100-01, 8 April 2008; compare and contrast Sanles Sanles v. Spain (dec.), no. 48335/99, ECHR 2000-XI; Fairfield and Others (dec.), cited above; Makri and Others v. Greece (dec.), no. 5977/03, ECHR 24 March 2005; and Biç and Others v. Turkey, no. 55955/00, § 23, 2 February 2006).
• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 62543/00

  GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 57602/09

  In addition, in order for an applicant to be able to claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, there must be a sufficiently direct link between the applicant and the harm which they consider they have sustained on account of the alleged violation (see, among other authorities, Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 35, ECHR 2004-III, with further references).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 57602/09

  Such, for example, have been cases in which the original applicants died during the proceedings before the Court and others with a legitimate interest (normally the applicant's heirs or next-of-kin) have taken their place (see, for example, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 7, Series A no. 35; Vocaturo v. Italy, 24 May 1991, § 2, Series A no. 206-C; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Kovacic and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 57602/09

  43577/98 and 43579/98, §§ 1-2, ECHR 2005-VII; Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, §§ 1 and 3, ECHR 2007-II; Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, §§ 1 and 3, 24 March 2011; and Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, §§ 1 and 3, 7 July 2011).
• EGMR, 25.03.1994 - 17116/90

  SCHERER v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 57602/09

  The Court has also, on occasion, held that a case could be continued after the death of an applicant, and even in the absence of heirs wishing to continue, where the issues transcended the interests of the applicant and raised an important question of public interest relevant to human rights standards in Contracting States (see Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-IX; compare and contrast Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, § 32, Series A no. 287).
• EGMR, 08.03.2005 - 24790/04

  FAIRFIELD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 44574/98

  Kovacic u. a. ./. Slowenien
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 55929/00

  MARIE-LOUISE LOYEN ET AUTRE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 54723/00

  BRUDNICKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 17671/02

  RESSEGATTI c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 7170/02

  GRADINAR v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 29.02.2000 - 45053/98

  L'ASSOCIATION DES AMIS DE SAINT-RAPHAËL ET DE FREJUS et AUTRES REQUERANTS contre …
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 5977/03

  MAKRI ET AUTRES c. GRECE
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 19221/08

  VAN MELLE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 39651/98
• EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 39032/97

  SMITS, KLEYN, METTLER TOLEDO B.V. ET AL., RAYMAKERS, VERENIGING LANDELIJK OVERLEG …

• EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 40495/15

  Polizeiliche Tatprovokation (Begriff: mittelbare Tatprovokation - Bestimmtsein …

  Der Gerichtshof hat die Befugnis zur Erhebung einer Beschwerde im eigenen Namen für die nächsten Angehörigen des Opfers anerkannt, wenn der behauptete Konventionsverstoß in engem Zusammenhang mit dem Verschwinden oder dem Tod von Personen stand und somit Fragen aufgeworfen wurden, die Artikel 2 betrafen; wenn andere Konventionsrechte betroffen waren, ist er hingegen restriktiver vorgegangen (siehe Direkçi./. Türkei (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 47826/99, 3. Oktober 2006; Nassau Verzekering Maatschappij N. V../. Niederlande (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 57602/09, Rdnrn. 19-20, 4. Oktober 2011, und Centre for Legal Resources im Namen von Valentin Câmpeanu, a.a.O., Rdnrn. 98 und 100 mit weiteren Nachweisen).
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 47922/14

  DRAHOS AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  In so far as the Old Town Evangelical Church's argument has been substantiated, the Court has found no material or other interest to justify the Old Town Evangelical Church in asserting its Convention complaint in relation to a period when the property in question was still owned by the Bratislava Evangelical Church (for a summary of the applicable principles, see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], cited above, §§ 96-97; see also Nassau Verzekering Maatschappij N.V. v. the Netherlands, no. 57602/09, §§ 19-20, 4 October 2011).
• EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 61458/08

  TITAN TOTAL GROUP S.R.L. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Pourtant, lorsqu'une personne intervient dans telle ou telle procédure par l'effet d'un rachat de créance, la Cour se doit de vérifier l'existence d'un intérêt légitime à faire constater que l'absence d'exécution de la décision rendue en faveur de la société cédante de la créance a eu lieu en méconnaissance de son droit à un procès équitable et de son droit à la libre jouissance de biens (voir Rousatommet c. Russie (no2), (déc.) 12064/04, 27 novembre 2008, Tunnel Report Limited c. France, no 27940/07, §§ 24-25, 18 novembre 2010, Nassau Verzekering Maatschappij N.V. c. Pays-Bas, (déc.) 57602/09, 4 octobre 2011, § 20).

 
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 60103/11

  STEPANIAN c. ROUMANIE

  Son intérêt dans l'affaire va au-delà d'un simple intérêt pécuniaire (Ilhan, précité, § 54, et a contrario Nassau Verzekering Maatschapij N.V. c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 57602/09, §§ 23-24, 4 octobre 2011, Kaburov, précitée, §§ 57-58, et Brincat et autres c. Malte, nos 60908/11, 62110/11, 62129/11, 62312/11 et 62338/11, §§ 18-21 et 132, 24 juillet 2014 ainsi que paragraphe 36 ci-dessus).
• EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 75388/14

  OOO OZON MEDIA c. RUSSIE

  La Cour considère que le fait que l'action au civil introduite par la société requérante n'ait pas été rejetée par les tribunaux internes pour défaut de la qualité d'agir ne suffit pas, à lui seul, pour lui conférer la qualité de victime d'une violation conventionnelle (Kalfagiannis et Pospert, précité, § 47), et cela indépendamment de la validité du contrat de cession au regard du droit interne (Nassau Verzekering Maatschappij N.V. c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 57602/09, § 25, 4 octobre 2011).
• EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 58777/12

  ZAHE-CONSULT KFT v. HUNGARY

  The Court has already held that the right of individual petition vouchsafed by Article 34 of the Convention is not a proprietary right, nor is it transferable as if it were (see Nassau Verzekering Maatschappij N.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 57602/09, § 25, 4 October 2011).