Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BALSAMO v. SAN MARINO

  No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BALSAMO v. SAN MARINO et 1 autre affaire

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (23)

• EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90

  WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  In such circumstances and particularly in view of the applicant's acquittal precisely on the basis of the lack of intention, it cannot be said that the measure also included a punitive purpose (see, a contrario, Sofia v. San Marino (dec.), no. 38977/15, § 63, 2 May 2017, and Vannucci v. San Marino, (dec.), no. 33898/15, 28 March 2017, concerning a confiscation of laundered assets, or the equivalent, respectively, under Article 147 (3) of the Criminal Code which were applicable after conviction, and Welch v. the United Kingdom, 9 February 1995, § 27, Series A no. 307-A, where the confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking followed a finding of guilt and its amount depended on the degree of culpability of the applicant).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  As regards property presumed to have been acquired either in full or in part with the proceeds of drug-trafficking offences (see Webb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56054/00, 10 February 2004; and Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98) or by criminal organisations involved in drug-trafficking (see Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001 VII and Morabito and Others v. Italy (dec.), 58572/00, ECHR 7 June 2005) or from other illicit mafia-type activities (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 30, Series A no. 281-A), the Court accepted that the confiscation measures were proportionate, even in the absence of a conviction establishing the guilt of the accused.
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  The Court has previously held that confiscation is not a measure confined to the sphere of criminal law, but that it is encountered widely in the sphere of administrative law where items liable to confiscation include illegally imported goods (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108), items considered dangerous in themselves (such as weapons, explosive or infected cattle) and property connected, even if only indirectly, with a criminal activity (see M. v. Italy, Yildirim, and Bowler International Unit, all cited above, and more recently Gogitidze and Others, cited above, § 126).

 
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  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).
• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  JOKELA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  The Court notes that in the present case the sums were found by the domestic courts to have illicit origins and that during such proceedings the applicants, who were legally represented, have been afforded a reasonable opportunity of putting their arguments before the domestic courts (see Piras v San. Marino, (dec.) no. 27803/16, § 59, 27 June 2017 and Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 does not apply if there is no arguable claim (see see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52 and Brincat and Others v. Malta, nos. 60908/11 and 4 others, § 139, 24 July 2014).
• EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 52024/99

  ARCURI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  As regards property presumed to have been acquired either in full or in part with the proceeds of drug-trafficking offences (see Webb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56054/00, 10 February 2004; and Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98) or by criminal organisations involved in drug-trafficking (see Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001 VII and Morabito and Others v. Italy (dec.), 58572/00, ECHR 7 June 2005) or from other illicit mafia-type activities (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 30, Series A no. 281-A), the Court accepted that the confiscation measures were proportionate, even in the absence of a conviction establishing the guilt of the accused.
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  PODESCHI v. SAN MARINO

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  In particular the Council of Europe Conventions on the matter have bound States to criminalise the laundering of the proceeds of crime and provide for other measures aimed at having a strong criminal policy to combat this growing national and international phenomenon the complexities of which are unprecedented (see Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 181, 13 April 2017).
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 48357/07

  AZIENDA AGRICOLA SILVERFUNGHI S.A.S. AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  Furthermore, a wide margin of appreciation is usually allowed to the State under the Convention when it comes to general measures of political, economic or social strategy, and the Court generally respects the legislature's policy choice unless it is "manifestly without reasonable foundation" (see Azienda Agricola Silverfunghi S.a.s. and Others v. Italy, nos. 48357/07, 52677/07, 52687/07 and 52701/07, § 103, 24 June 2014).
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 27803/16

  PIRAS v. SAN MARINO

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  The Court notes that in the present case the sums were found by the domestic courts to have illicit origins and that during such proceedings the applicants, who were legally represented, have been afforded a reasonable opportunity of putting their arguments before the domestic courts (see Piras v San. Marino, (dec.) no. 27803/16, § 59, 27 June 2017 and Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 10.02.2004 - 56054/00

  WEBB v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67208/01

  REHÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 5667/02

  KÉRÉTCHACHVILI c. GEORGIE
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01

  POPOV v. MOLDOVA (No. 1)
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 21447/03

  PREDESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 19.06.2006 - 23130/04

  Menschenrechtskonvention : Unzulässigkeit der Beschwerde wegen Missbrauchs des …
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

  YILDIRIM contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 70074/01

  VALICO S.R.L. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11

  KOWAL v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04

  ZALYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 42875/10

  BERLAND c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 76959/11

  SOCIÉTÉ OXYGÈNE PLUS c. FRANCE

• BVerfG, 10.02.2021 - 2 BvL 8/19

  Rückwirkende strafrechtliche Vermögensabschöpfung verfassungsgemäß

  a) Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte bestimmt den Begriff der Strafe im Sinne von Art. 7 Abs. 1 EMRK autonom (vgl. EGMR, Welch v. The United Kingdom, Urteil vom 9. Februar 1995, Nr. 17440/90, § 27; Bergmann v. Germany, Urteil vom 7. Januar 2016, Nr. 23279/14, § 150; EGMR (GK), G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy, Urteil vom 28. Juni 2018, Nr. 1828/06 and 2 others, § 210; Ilnseher v. Germany, Urteil vom 4. Dezember 2018, Nr. 10211/12 and 27505/14, § 203; EGMR, Balsamo v. San Marino, Urteil vom 8. Oktober 2019, Nr. 20319/17 and 21414/17, § 59).

  Weitere relevante Faktoren sind die Art und der Zweck der Maßnahme, ihre Charakterisierung nach innerstaatlichem Recht, die mit ihrer Schaffung und Durchführung verbundenen Verfahren und ihre Schwere (vgl. EGMR, Welch v. The United Kingdom, Urteil vom 9. Februar 1995, Nr. 17440/90, § 28; Vannucci v. San Marino, Entscheidung vom 28. März 2017, Nr. 33898/15, § 40; EGMR (GK), G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy, Urteil vom 28. Juni 2018, Nr. 1828/06 and 2 others, § 211; EGMR, Balsamo v. San Marino, Urteil vom 8. Oktober 2019, Nr. 20319/17 and 21414/17, § 59; vgl. entsprechend zum Strafbegriff außerhalb des Bereichs der vermögensabschöpfenden Maßnahmen EGMR (GK), Ilnseher v. Germany, Urteil vom 4. Dezember 2018, Nr. 10211/12 and 27505/14, § 203).

  Für sich allein zwingt weder die fehlende Anknüpfung an eine strafrechtliche Verurteilung noch die Entscheidung durch ein Strafgericht oder die Schwere der Maßnahme zu einem bestimmten Abwägungsergebnis (vgl. EGMR, Balsamo v. San Marino, Urteil vom 8. Oktober 2019, Nr. 20319/17 and 21414/17, §§ 60, 63 f.; vgl. zur begrenzten Aussagekraft der Schwere der Maßnahme auch EGMR, Welch v. The United Kingdom, Urteil vom 9. Februar 1995, Nr. 17440/90, § 32; EGMR (GK), Ilnseher v. Germany, Urteil vom 4. Dezember 2018, Nr. 10211/12 und 27505/14, § 203).

  Die Einziehung ist nach der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs keine auf den Bereich des Strafrechts beschränkte Maßnahme, sondern kommt in erheblichem Umfang auch im Bereich des Verwaltungsrechts vor (vgl. EGMR, Balsamo v. San Marino, Urteil vom 8. Oktober 2019, Nr. 20319/17 and 21414/17, § 64).

  b) In der Entscheidung Balsamo v. San Marino ging es um einen Fall, in dem Bankguthaben und der Inhalt eines Schließfaches im Wert von fast zwei Millionen Euro wegen ihrer Herkunft aus Geldwäschetaten eingezogen wurden, obwohl die Inhaberinnen der Konten zugleich mangels Vorsatzes freigesprochen worden waren (vgl. EGMR, Balsamo v. San Marino, Urteil vom 8. Oktober 2019, Nr. 20319/17 and 21414/17, §§ 8-12, 16).

  Unter Bezugnahme auf die in den Entscheidungen G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy und Ilnseher v. Germany dargestellten Maßstäbe (vgl. EGMR, Balsamo v. San Marino, Urteil vom 8. Oktober 2019, Nr. 20319/17 and 21414/17, § 59) sah der Gerichtshof in dieser Einziehung keine Strafe im Sinne des Art. 7 EMRK, da hier nach Art und Zweck keine pönale, sondern eine präventive Maßnahme vorliege.

  Denn viele nicht-pönale Maßnahmen präventiver Art hätten einen erheblichen Einfluss auf die betroffene Person (vgl. EGMR, Balsamo v. San Marino, Urteil vom 8. Oktober 2019, Nr. 20319/17 and 21414/17, §§ 62-64).

  aa) Zentrale Kriterien sind nach der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs die Art und der Zweck der Maßnahme, für deren Bestimmung auch die nationale Rechtsprechung und Dogmatik heranzuziehen sind (vgl. EGMR (GK), G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy, Urteil vom 28. Juni 2018, Nr. 1828/06 and 2 others, §§ 222-226; EGMR, Balsamo v. San Marino, Urteil vom 8. Oktober 2019, Nr. 20319/17 and 21414/17, § 62), während die Anknüpfung an eine strafrechtliche Verurteilung, die Entscheidung durch ein Strafgericht und die Schwere der Maßnahme für sich allein nicht zu einem bestimmten Auslegungsergebnis zwingen.

• EGMR, 02.05.2024 - 35271/19

  THE J. PAUL GETTY TRUST AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  As regards whether it was foreseeable that the contested measure could be imposed when the relevant offence, notably the unlawful exportation of a cultural object, had not been committed by the owner and had become statute-barred in respect of the accused, the Court reiterates that each confiscation must be seen in its context (see Balsamo v. San Marino, nos. 20319/17 and 21414/17, § 64, 8 October 2019).
• EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 35648/10

  LOCASCIA AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Lastly, the Court reiterates that Article 13 does not apply if there is no arguable claim (see Balsamo v. San Marino, nos. 20319/17 and 21414/17, § 77, 8 October 2019 and the case-law cited therein).

 
• EGMR - 973/21 (anhängig)

  FRAROVI S.A.S. DI ROVINELLI THOMAS & C. v. ITALY and 3 other applications

  20319/17 and 21414/17, § 91, 8 October 2019);.
• EGMR - 47269/18 (anhängig)

  GAROFALO v. ITALY and 3 other applications

  20319/17 and 21414/17, § 58 et seq., 8 October 2019, Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.
• EGMR - 76967/17 (anhängig)

  PERROZZI v. ITALY and 13 other applications

  (ii) whether domestic authorities showed that the confiscated assets belonged to the applicant's relative in a reasoned manner, on the basis of an objective assessment of the factual evidence (see Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 122, 12 May 2015, and Balsamo v. San Marino, nos. 20319/17 and 21414/17, § 91, 8 October 2019);.