Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ULEMEK v. SERBIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ULEMEK v. SERBIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 41680/13

  The Court accordingly finds that the forfeiture measure in the instant case was effected in accordance with the general interest in ensuring that the use of the property in question did not procure an advantage for the applicant to the detriment of the community (compare Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 30, Series A no. 281-A; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, 5 July 2001; Phillips, cited above, § 52; and Gogitidze and Others, cited above, § 103).
• EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 41087/98

  PHILLIPS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 41680/13

  Instead, it must determine whether the way in which those provisions were applied in the applicant's case gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 41, ECHR 2001-VII, and Lekic v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, § 107, 11 December 2018).
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 12951/11

  VEITS v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 41680/13

  The Court also notes that the interference constituted the control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many other authorities, Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A; Veits v. Estonia, no. 12951/11, § 70, 15 January 2015; Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 94, 12 May 2015; Telbis and Viziteu v. Romania, no. 47911/15, § 69, 26 June 2018; and Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001).

 
• EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90

  WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 41680/13

  Thirdly, in the case of the forfeiture of criminal assets, unlike in the case of criminal law fines, the degree of culpability of the offender is irrelevant for fixing the amount of assets declared forfeited (see Dassa Foundation and Others, cited above and, a contrario, Welch v. the United Kingdom, 9 February 1995, § 33, Series A no. 307-A).
• EGMR, 04.09.2001 - 52439/99

  RIELA ET AUTRES contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 41680/13

  The Court also notes that the interference constituted the control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many other authorities, Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A; Veits v. Estonia, no. 12951/11, § 70, 15 January 2015; Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 94, 12 May 2015; Telbis and Viziteu v. Romania, no. 47911/15, § 69, 26 June 2018; and Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001).
• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

  GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 41680/13

  The Court also notes that the interference constituted the control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many other authorities, Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A; Veits v. Estonia, no. 12951/11, § 70, 15 January 2015; Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 94, 12 May 2015; Telbis and Viziteu v. Romania, no. 47911/15, § 69, 26 June 2018; and Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001).
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 47911/15

  TELBIS AND VIZITEU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 41680/13

  The Court also notes that the interference constituted the control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many other authorities, Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A; Veits v. Estonia, no. 12951/11, § 70, 15 January 2015; Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 94, 12 May 2015; Telbis and Viziteu v. Romania, no. 47911/15, § 69, 26 June 2018; and Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001).
• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 41680/13

  The Court also notes that the interference constituted the control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many other authorities, Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A; Veits v. Estonia, no. 12951/11, § 70, 15 January 2015; Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 94, 12 May 2015; Telbis and Viziteu v. Romania, no. 47911/15, § 69, 26 June 2018; and Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001).

• EGMR - 81658/17 (anhängig)

  NOCERINO v. ITALY and 3 other applications

  81658/17 Nocerino v. Italy, 17886/20 Gulizia v. Italy and 32708/20 Bruno v. Italy, can the confiscation of the alleged proceeds of crime, as prescribed by Article 12 sexies of Law Decree no. 306/1992, be considered a "penalty" within the meaning of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention (see Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 50705/11 and 6 others, §§ 302-306, 13 July 2021, Ulemek v. Serbia (dec.), no. 41680/13, §§ 47-57, 2 February 2021 and Welch v. the United Kingdom, 9 February 1995, §§ 28-35, Series A no. 307-A)?.