Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 16248/10 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,53712) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ANTTILA v. FINLAND
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
ANTTILA v. FINLAND
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09
CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 16248/10
As the Court explained in the case Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy, a person cannot complain of a violation of his or her rights in proceedings to which he or she was not a party, even if he or she was a shareholder and/or director of a company which was party to the proceedings (see Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 93, ECHR 2012; see also F. Santos, Lda. and Fachadas v. Portugal (dec.), no. 49020/99, ECHR 2000-X; and Nosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30877/02, 20 October 2005). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 35178/97
ANKARCRONA c. SUEDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 16248/10
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, 17.06.2008 - 32283/04
MELTEX LTD AND MOVSESYAN v. ARMENIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 16248/10
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, 27.09.2005 - 2507/03
AMAT-G LTD AND MEBAGISHVILI v. GEORGIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 16248/10
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, 20.10.2005 - 30877/02
NOSOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 16248/10
As the Court explained in the case Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy, a person cannot complain of a violation of his or her rights in proceedings to which he or she was not a party, even if he or she was a shareholder and/or director of a company which was party to the proceedings (see Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 93, ECHR 2012; see also F. Santos, Lda. and Fachadas v. Portugal (dec.), no. 49020/99, ECHR 2000-X; and Nosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30877/02, 20 October 2005). - EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 37398/97
CDI HOLDING AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 16248/10
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, 16.11.2021 - 41055/12
ASSOTSIATSIYA NGO GOLOS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Court reached the same conclusion in a case in which the editor-in-chief of a magazine published by a limited-liability company (in which he was one of two shareholders and the chairman of the board) complained that his right to freedom of expression had been violated on account of the Finnish authorities prohibiting the company from processing personal data (see Anttila v. Finland (dec.), no. 16248/10, 19 November 2013; see also Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, §§ 30 and 139-40, 27 June 2017).