Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PATRIKOVA v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6 Violations of P1-1 Pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 71835/01

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 71835/01

  The requirement of lawfulness, within the meaning of the Convention, demands compliance with the relevant provisions of domestic law and compatibility with the rule of law, which includes freedom from arbitrariness (see Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, § 42 and Kushoglu v. Bulgaria, no. 48191/99, §§ 49-62, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 71835/01

  Temporary seizure of evidence in the context of pending criminal proceedings is in principal a measure that is justified under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no. 281-A).
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 71835/01

  The applicant's complaint that this seizure, the manner in which the seized merchandise was handled and the resulting damage were unlawful and violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 therefore falls to be examined under the second paragraph of this provision, as it concerns measures of control of the use of property (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 51, Series A no. 108, and, as a recent example, Grifhorst v. France, no. 28336/02, §§ 84-86, 26 February 2009).

• EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 24827/14

  FU QUAN, S.R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  A seizure of property for legal proceedings normally relates to the control of the use of property, which falls within the ambit of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no. 281-A; Patrikova v. Bulgaria, no. 71835/01, § 81, 4 March 2010; JGK Statyba Ltd and Guselnikovas v. Lithuania, no. 3330/12, § 117, 5 November 2013; Hábenczius, cited above, § 28; D?¾inic v. Croatia, no. 38359/13, § 62, 17 May 2016; Lachikhina v. Russia, no. 38783/07, § 58, 10 October 2017; and Adamczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 28551/04, 7 November 2006; contrast Waldemar Nowakowski v. Poland, no. 55167/11, § 46, 24 July 2012).

  The Court has thus previously found a violation of Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 in a situation where the domestic authorities failed to comply with the national law concerning the obligations the State had when handling the seized property (see Metalco Bt. v. Hungary, no. 34976/05, § 17, 1 February 2011), where the length of time for which the property had been seized seemed unjustifiable in the circumstances of the case at issue (see Patrikova v. Bulgaria, no. 71835/01, § 98, 4 March 2010), and where the national authorities had failed to comply with a final domestic court decision ordering the return of its merchandise, which had been seized as evidence in criminal proceedings (see Stolkowski v. Poland, no. 58795/15, §§ 81-82, 21 December 2021).

• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04

  SHESTI MAI ENGINEERING OOD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  If domestic law and the nature of the injury suffered by the applicant make such reparation possible, the Court takes that into consideration under Article 41, sometimes applying an appropriate reduction of the just satisfaction award (see Todorova and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, §§ 43-46, and contrast De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), 10 March 1972, § 20, Series A no. 14), and sometimes declining to make any award at all (see Patrikova v. Bulgaria, no. 71835/01, §§ 113 and 115, 4 March 2010).
• EGMR - 2929/13 (anhängig)

  ZANOTTI v. ITALY

  In particular, was there a legitimate reason for retaining the applicant's assets for fifteen months after the decision not to prosecute and the order to immediately return her the seized assets (see Akpaz Société à responsabilité limitée v. Turkey, no. 6800/09, § 99, 18 January 2022, Patrikova v. Bulgaria, no. 71835/01, § 98, 4 March 2010, and, mutatis mutandis, Raimondo v. Italy, no. 12954/87, § 36, 22 February 2004)? If so, was the measure proportionate to aim pursued?.