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 ... (31)Zitiert selbst (35)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• 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, 28.06.2018 - 1828/06

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  1828/06 and 2 Others, § 251, 28 June 2018).
• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  Against this legal background, the Court confirms the preventive character of such a confiscation designed to prevent the unlawful use of these proceeds, an aim also sought by various international instruments (see paragraphs 38 - 40 above) (compare also, Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 101, 12 May 2015).

• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  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, 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, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  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, 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, 10.04.2012 - 20496/02

  SILICKIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  The situation was therefore different from that in Geerings v. the Netherlands (no. 30810/03, 1 March 2007) and the presumption of innocence had been respected as was the case in Silickienė v. Lithuania (no. 20496/02, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 39388/05

  Maumousseau und Washington ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  In the light of the applicant's submissions, it must be recalled that the national courts are entrusted to resolve problems of interpretation and application of domestic legislation as well as rules of general international law or international agreement (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 79, 6 December 2007).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  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, 29.10.2013 - 17475/09

  VARVARA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 52024/99

  ARCURI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 19.06.2006 - 23130/04

  Menschenrechtskonvention : Unzulässigkeit der Beschwerde wegen Missbrauchs des …
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01

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

  PREDESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 15.05.2003 - 72203/01
• EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 5667/02

  KÉRÉTCHACHVILI c. GEORGIE
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67208/01

  REHÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  PODESCHI v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 696/05

  DASSA FOUNDATION AND OTHERS v. LIECHTENSTEIN
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

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

  VALICO S.R.L. c. ITALIE
• EKMR, 15.04.1991 - 12386/86

  M. contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 48357/07

  AZIENDA AGRICOLA SILVERFUNGHI S.A.S. v. ITALY and 3 other applications
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11

  KOWAL v. POLAND
• EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 27265/95

  TERAZZI S.R.L. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 42875/10

  BERLAND c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04

  ZALYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 05.10.2016 - 30810/03

  GEERINGS CONTRE LES PAYS-BAS
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 33898/15

  VANNUCCI v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 38977/15

  SOFIA v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 27803/16

  PIRAS v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 76959/11

  SOCIETE OXYGENE PLUS c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.02.2004 - 56054/00

  WEBB v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• 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, 25.09.2025 - 36551/22

  ISAIA v. ITALY and 2 other applications

  As such, it has found that the applications were manifestly ill-founded or that there had been no violation in cases concerning Mafia-related offences (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, §§ 16-30, Series A no. 281-A; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII; and Morabito and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 58572/00, ECHR 7 June 2005), drug trafficking (see Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002; Webb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56054/00, 10 February 2004; and Saccoccia v. Austria, no. 69917/01, §§ 87-91, 18 December 2008), corruption in the public services (see Gogitidze and Others, cited above, §§ 103-14), organised crime (see Silickienė, cited above, §§ 60-70), or money laundering (see Balsamo v. San Marino, nos. 20319/17 and 21414/17, §§ 89-95, 8 October 2019, and Zaghini v. San Marino, no. 3405/21, §§ 60-71, 11 May 2023).

  20319/17 and 21414/17, §§ 89 and 93, 8 October 2019, where a confiscation measure was also imposed on the children on account of their father's previous criminal record; and Zaghini v. San Marino, no. 3405/21, §§ 17 and 65, 11 May 2023, where the applicant was a son of a man found guilty of money laundering).

• EGMR, 11.06.2024 - 32483/19

  NEALON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM and 1 other application

  Rn. 154 It is likewise of interest that the termination of proceedings by way of an acquittal has not been found to preclude as such the confiscation of funds which were illicit as a result of the crimes attributed not to the acquitted person, but to a third party (see Balsamo v. San Marino, nos. 20319/17 and 21414/17, 8 October 2019); or the imposition of an obligation to pay administrative fines (see Kapetanios, cited above, where a violation was, however, found on the facts of the case as the administrative courts in rejecting the applicants' appeal against the fines considered that they had committed the offences of which they had previously been acquitted).

• EGMR, 19.12.2024 - 47284/16

  EPISCOPO v. ITALY

  At any rate, this criterion is only one among others to be taken into consideration, without it being regarded as decisive when it comes to establishing the nature of the measure (see G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others, cited above, § 217; Balsamo v. San Marino, nos. 20319/17 and 21414/17, § 60, 8 October 2019; and Ulemek v. Serbia (dec.), no. 41680/13, §§ 48 and 58, 2 February 2021).

  20319/17 and 21414/17, 8 October 2019; Ulemek v. Serbia, no. 41680/13, 2 February 2021; Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.

• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 50705/11

  TODOROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  More recently, the case of Balsamo v. San Marino (nos. 20319/17 and 21414/17, §§ 89-95, 8 October 2019) concerned proceeds from money laundering.
• EGMR, 29.08.2024 - 24622/22

  PASQUINELLI AND OTHERS v. SAN MARINO

  Rn. 44 Similarly, the administrative proceedings being futile, and of no relevance to the assessment of the complaints, there is no question of bad faith or improper behavior by the four applicants who had instituted administrative proceedings (see paragraph 20 above) and omitted to inform the Court thereof, and therefore the Court sees no reason to uphold the Government's objection of abuse of petition, which is therefore also dismissed (compare Balsamo v. San Marino, nos. 20319/17 and 21414/17, § 48, 8 October 2019, and Aboya Boa Jean v. Malta, no. 62676/16, § 37, 2 April 2019).
• EGMR, 02.05.2024 - 35271/19

  THE J. PAUL GETTY TRUST AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Rn. 308 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, 02.02.2021 - 41680/13

  ULEMEK v. SERBIA

  20319/17 and 21414/17, § 62, 8 October 2019, concerning a confiscation applied in criminal proceedings).
• EGMR, 03.09.2026 - 5837/17

  NEW GENERATION HUMANITARIAN NGO v. ARMENIA

  Given that incompatibility, the applicant NGO's related complaints under Article 13 and Article 14 are also incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 (compare Balsamo v. San Marino, nos. 20319/17 and 21414/17, § 77, 8 October 2019, and Mnatsakanyan v. Armenia, no. 2463/12, § 79, 6 December 2022).
• EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 35511/20

  GHERARDI MARTIRI v. SAN MARINO

  The articles also contained misleading information about these proceedings, but this could be the result of inadvertence or inexperience of court proceedings by the sources of the information (compare Podeschi, cited above, § 88, and Balsamo v. San Marino, nos. 20319/17 and 21414/17, § 48, 8 October 2019).
• EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 35648/10

  LOCASCIA AND OTHERS v. ITALY
• EGMR, 23.10.2025 - 26338/19

  TARTAMELLA v. ITALY and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 07.10.2025 - 48725/12

  PRENCA v. SERBIA and 7 other applications
• EGMR, 03.03.2026 - 19951/21

  VOLOZHANIN AND ZNAKOVAN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 47269/18

  GAROFALO v. ITALY and 3 other applications
• EGMR, 11.05.2023 - 3405/21

  ZAGHINI v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 12.09.2024 - 25189/21

  MELANDRI v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 28.02.2023 - 911/16

  CAPA?¢ÎNA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2024 - 36013/13

  COSOVAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 01.07.2025 - 25092/12

  GALE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 18.11.2025 - 54208/11

  BURUSUKOGLU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 30.09.2025 - 43033/08

  KAYA c. TURQUIE
• EGMR - 43204/12 (anhängig)

  D'ORIANO v. ITALY and 41 other applications
• EGMR - 21483/20 (anhängig)

  CASAMONICA v. ITALY
• EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 35780/18

  LONGO v. ITALY
• EGMR - 76967/17 (anhängig)

  PERROZZI v. ITALY and 13 other applications
• EGMR - 973/21 (anhängig)

  FRAROVI S.A.S. DI ROVINELLI THOMAS & C. v. ITALY and 3 other applications
• EGMR, 14.11.2024 - 11536/23

  ROBERTI v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 60432/15

  TENDER S.A. AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR - 20912/24 (anhängig)

  GRIMALDI AND PARISI v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR - 51080/12 (anhängig)

  GUERRA AND CASUCCI v. ITALY