Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CDI HOLDING AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (7)

• EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

  CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY

  Furthermore, while in certain circumstances the sole owner of a company can claim to be a "victim" within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention where the impugned measures were taken in respect of his or her company (see, among other authorities, Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, ECHR 2000-VI, and Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov, cited above, § 40), when that is not the case the disregarding of a company's legal personality can be justified only in exceptional circumstances, in particular where it is clearly established that it is impossible for the company to apply to the Convention institutions through the organs set up under its articles of incorporation or - in the event of liquidation - through its liquidators (see Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia, no. 32283/04, § 66, 17 June 2008; see also Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, § 66, Series A no. 330-A; CDI Holding Aktiengesellschaft and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 37398/97, 18 October 2001; and Amat-G Ltd and Mebaghishvili v. Georgia, no. 2507/03, § 33, ECHR 2005-VIII).
• EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 32283/04

  MELTEX LTD AND MOVSESYAN v. ARMENIA

  Furthermore, while in certain circumstances the sole owner of a company can claim to be a "victim" within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention in so far as the impugned measures taken with regard to his or her company are concerned (see, among other authorities, Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, 27 June 2000; and Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, §§ 40, ECHR 2007-...), when that is not the case the disregarding of an applicant company's legal personality can be justified only in exceptional circumstances, in particular where it is clearly established that it is impossible for the company to apply to the Convention institutions through the organs set up under its articles of incorporation or - in the event of liquidation - through its liquidators (see Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, judgment of 24 October 1995, Series A no. 330, p. 25, § 66; CDI Holding Aktiengesellschaft and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 37398/97, 18 October 2001; and Amat-G Ltd and Mebaghishvili v. Georgia, no. 2507/03, § 33, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 25707/05

  ERDURAN AND EM EXPORT DIS TIC. A.S. v. TURKEY

  Furthermore, while in certain circumstances the sole owner of a company can claim to be a "victim" within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention where the impugned measures were taken in respect of his or her company (see Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, ECHR 2000-VI, and Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, § 40, 11 October 2007), when that is not the case the disregarding of a company's legal personality can be justified only in exceptional circumstances, in particular where it is clearly established that it is impossible for the company to apply to the Court through the organs set up under its articles of incorporation or - in the event of liquidation - through its liquidators (see Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, § 66, Series A no. 330-A; CDI Holding Aktiengesellschaft and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 37398/97, 18 October 2001; Amat-G Ltd and Mebaghishvili v. Georgia, no. 2507/03, § 33, ECHR 2005-VIII; and Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia, no. 32283/04, § 66, 17 June 2008).

 
• EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 53818/00

  T.W. COMPUTERANIMATION GMBH AND OTHERS V. AUSTRIA

  The Court has found earlier that disregarding an applicant company's legal personality in similar cases can by justified only in exceptional circumstances, in particular where it is clearly established that it is impossible for the company to apply to the Convention institutions through the organs set up under its articles of incorporation or, in the event of liquidation - through its liquidators (see Agrotexim and Others, cited above, p. 25, § 66; CDI Holding and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 37398/97, 18 October 2001).
• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 76165/11

  PAPASTERGIOPOULOS c. GRÈCE

  De plus, si dans certaines circonstances le propriétaire unique d'une société peut se prétendre «victime» au sens de l'article 34 de la Convention s'agissant des mesures litigieuses prises à l'égard de sa société (voir, parmi d'autres, Ankarcrona c. Suède (déc.), no 35178/97, CEDH 2000-VI ), lorsque tel n'est pas le cas, faire abstraction de la personnalité juridique d'une société ne se justifie que dans des circonstances exceptionnelles, notamment lorsqu'il est clairement établi que la société se trouve dans l'impossibilité de saisir les organes de la Convention par l'intermédiaire de ses organes statutaires ou - en cas de liquidation - par ses liquidateurs (voir Agrotexim et autres c. Grèce, 24 octobre 1995, § 66, série A no 330-A, CDI Holding Aktiengesellschaft et autres c. Slovaquie (déc.), no 37398/97, 18 octobre 2001, SARL Amat-G et Mébaghichvili c. Géorgie, no 2507/03, § 33, CEDH 2005-VIII, et Meltex Ltd et Movsessian c. Arménie, no 32283/04, § 66, 17 juin 2008).
• EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 16248/10

  ANTTILA v. FINLAND

  Furthermore, while in certain circumstances the sole owner of a company can claim to be a "victim" within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention where the impugned measures were taken in respect of his or her company (see, among other authorities, Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, ECHR 2000-VI; and Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, § 40, 11 October 2007), when that is not the case the disregarding of a company's legal personality can be justified only in exceptional circumstances, in particular where it is clearly established that it is impossible for the company to apply to the Convention institutions through the organs set up under its articles of incorporation or - in the event of liquidation - through its liquidators (see Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia, no. 32283/04, § 66, 17 June 2008; see also Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, § 66, Series A no. 330-A; CDI Holding Aktiengesellschaft and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 37398/97, 18 October 2001; and Amat-G Ltd and Mebaghishvili v. Georgia, no. 2507/03, § 33, ECHR 2005-VIII).
• EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 48548/99

  ZICH ET AUTRES c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Agrotexim et autres c. Grèce, arrêt du 24 octobre 1995, Série A n° 330-A, SGI et autres c. France (déc.), n° 39011/97, Paparatti et autres c. Italie (déc.), n° 37196/97, Farbers et Harlanova c. Lettonie (déc.), n° 57313/00, CDI Holding Aktiengesellschaft et autres c. Slovaquie (déc.), n° 37398/97, Leab c. France (déc.), n° 46810/99, Ankarcrona c. Suède (déc.), n° 35178/97, CEDH 2000-VI, Crédit industriel c. République tchèque, n° 29010/95, Olczak c. Pologne (déc.), n° 30417/96, CEDH 2002-X, et Gorraiz Lizarraga et autres c. Espagne (déc.), n° 62543/00.