Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WALDEMAR NOWAKOWSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property) Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - reserved (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage) ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 55167/11
• EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 55167/11
• EGMR, 14.10.2015 - 55167/11

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 04.09.2001 - 52439/99

  RIELA ET AUTRES contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 55167/11

  The Court has usually held in its case-law that a confiscation measure given in the context of criminal proceedings, although it involves deprivation of possessions, nevertheless constitutes a control of use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, 5 July 2001; C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, 26 June 2001; and Sun v. Russia, no. 31004/02, § 25, 5 February 2009).

  by the elliptical reasoning in the last two sentences of § 51 of AGOSI v. the United Kingdom (no. 9118/80, 24 October 1986) and by the lack of proper distinction between the attachment stage and the disposal stage (as provided for in the relevant domestic law) in Riela et autres c. l'Italie (dec.) no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001.

• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 55167/11

  The circumstances of the case were therefore fundamentally different from cases where confiscation orders were made in the context of criminal proceedings concerning charges of serious or organised crime and where there was a strong suspicion or certainty confirmed by a judicial decision that the confiscated assets were the proceeds of an offence (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, §§ 9-18, ECHR 2001-VII), which were deemed to have been unlawfully acquired (see Riela and Arcuri, both cited above, and Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 29, Series A no. 281-A) or were intended for use in illegal activities (see Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 55167/11

  The second and third rules, which are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, must be construed in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see, among many authorities, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 44, ECHR 1999-V; Barbara Wisniewska v. Poland, no. 9072/02, § 93, 29 November 2011).

 
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 55167/11

  The requisite balance will not be found if the person or persons concerned have had to bear an individual and excessive burden (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 50, Series A no. 98; Schirmer v. Poland, no. 68880/01, § 35, 21 September 2004; Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, § 59-60, 8 December 2009; compare and contrast Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Limited v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, 25 January 2000).
• EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 52024/99

  ARCURI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 55167/11

  The Court has usually held in its case-law that a confiscation measure given in the context of criminal proceedings, although it involves deprivation of possessions, nevertheless constitutes a control of use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, 5 July 2001; C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, 26 June 2001; and Sun v. Russia, no. 31004/02, § 25, 5 February 2009).
• EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 36548/97

  PINCOVÁ ET PINC c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 55167/11

  The Court is therefore of the view that the domestic courts failed to take into account the applicant's personal situation and characteristics (see, Pincová and Pinc v. the Czech Republic, no. 36548/97, § 61, ECHR 2002-VIII, mutatis mutandis).
• EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 28078/95

  C.M. c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 55167/11

  The Court has usually held in its case-law that a confiscation measure given in the context of criminal proceedings, although it involves deprivation of possessions, nevertheless constitutes a control of use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, 5 July 2001; C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, 26 June 2001; and Sun v. Russia, no. 31004/02, § 25, 5 February 2009).
• EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 9072/02

  WISNIEWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 55167/11

  The second and third rules, which are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, must be construed in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see, among many authorities, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 44, ECHR 1999-V; Barbara Wisniewska v. Poland, no. 9072/02, § 93, 29 November 2011).