Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRAYSON ET BARNHAM c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 Non-violation de P1-1 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRAYSON AND BARNHAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of P1-1 (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Wird zitiert von ... (21)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

  [FRE]

  However, the Court reiterates that it is not within its province to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts, who are better placed to assess the evidence before them (see Grayson and Barnham v. the United Kingdom, nos. 19955/05 and 15085/06, § 48, 23 September 2008).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 15227/19

  Albanien: erfolglose Klage vor dem EGMR gegen Entlassung als Verfassungsrichterin …

  352. The Court further reiterates that it is not per se arbitrary, for the purposes of the "civil" limb of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the burden of proof shifted onto the applicant in the vetting proceedings after the IQC had made available the preliminary findings resulting from the conclusion of the investigation and had given access to the evidence in the case file (see Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 122, 12 May 2015, in the context of forfeiture proceedings in rem, and, mutatis mutandis, Grayson and Barnham v. the United Kingdom, nos. 19955/05 and 15085/06, §§ 37-49, 23 September 2008, in the context of a confiscation order in drug-trafficking cases).
• EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 17475/09

  VARVARA c. ITALIE

  19955/05 and 15085/06, § 49, 23 September 2008 (relating to the same Act), in which the first applicant had had to pay the £ 1,236,748 confiscated, on threat of an additional eight-year prison sentence, and the second applicant £ 1,460,615, on threat of a prison sentence of five years and three months; and Woolley v. the United Kingdom, no. 28019/10, §§ 80-84, 10 April 2012 (relating to section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and section 139 of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, in which the applicant had had to serve four years" imprisonment in addition to his sentence because he had failed to pay the £ 497, 784.02 confiscated.

• EGMR, 08.07.2025 - 59494/09

  [ENG]

  The fact that the assumptions were not made rendered any such complaint even weaker here than it was in Phillips (cited above) and Grayson and Barnham v. the United Kingdom (nos. 19955/05 and 15085/06, 23 September 2008).

  19955/05 and 15085/06, § 37, 23 September 2008, Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 281-A, Arcuri v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII, Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, ECHR 2002-VI, and Webb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56054/00, 10 February 2004), the Government argued that confiscation proceedings did not involve the bringing of a new charge, regardless of whether the confiscation order had deprived the applicant of the benefit derived from the specific conviction which had triggered the proceedings, or from drug trafficking with which he had neither been charged nor convicted.

• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 50705/11

  TODOROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The conclusions reached in Phillips were reiterated in Grayson and Barnham v. the United Kingdom (nos. 19955/05 and 15085/06, § 52-53, 23 September 2008).
• EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 41047/19

  THANZA v. ALBANIA

  19955/05 and 15085/06, §§ 41-42, 23 September 2008; and Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 10.09.2013 - 663/11

  NEDYALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  19955/05 and 15085/06, §§ 37-49, 23 September 2008, and see, mutatis mutandis, Walsh v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43384/05, 21 November 2006).
• EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 69729/12

  FILKIN v. PORTUGAL

  La Cour observe ensuite que la mesure litigieuse a été ordonnée parce que les autorités internes soupçonnaient que la somme qui avait été transférée sur le compte bancaire du requérant provenait d'activités délictueuses, à savoir notamment le trafic de stupéfiants (paragraphe 33 ci-dessus ; pour des affaires similaires, voir Phillips c. Royaume-Uni (no 41087/98, CEDH 2001-VII) et Grayson et Barnham c. Royaume-Uni (nos 19955/05 et 15085/06, 23 septembre 2008)).
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 3503/08

  ÜNSPED PAKET SERVISI SAN. VE TIc. A.S. v. BULGARIA

  19955/05 and 15085/06, § 45, 23 September 2008).
• EGMR, 25.09.2025 - 36551/22

  ISAIA v. ITALY and 2 other applications

  Rn. 71 The second is Grayson and Barnham v. the United Kingdom (nos. 19955/05 and 15085/06, 23 September 2008, again concerning the confiscation of "imputed income" from drug trafficking, though in this case in the presence of a conviction.
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 38977/15

  SOFIA v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 01.07.2025 - 58671/12

  KOLI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 08.07.2025 - 54241/12

  BAGNALL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 23572/07

  ZSCHÜSCHEN c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 11186/03

  JAKUPI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 03.06.2021 - 48431/18

  BUSUTTIL v. MALTA
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 23178/13

  DOSTENKO v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 10.11.2009 - 7618/07

  MINHAS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 21400/17

  CAMERINI v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 01.07.2025 - 51757/12

  SHARMA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 38759/12

  YOUNG v. THE UNITED KINGDOM