Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MICROINTELECT OOD v. BULGARIA

  Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Microintelect OOD v. Bulgaria

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 34129/03
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 34129/03

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04

  SHESTI MAI ENGINEERING OOD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 34129/03

  Among these, account should be taken of the company's reputation, uncertainty in planning and decision making, disruption in the management of the company and lastly, albeit to a lesser degree, anxiety and inconvenience caused to the members of the management team (see, among other authorities, Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, §§ 32-36, ECHR 2000-IV, and Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 17854/04, § 115, 20 September 2011).
• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  JOKELA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 34129/03

  In ascertaining whether this condition has been satisfied, the Court must take a comprehensive view of the applicable procedures (see AGOSI, cited above, § 55; Bowler International Unit, cited above, §§ 44-45; Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV; and Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, § 59, 1 April 2010).
• EGMR, 27.03.2019 - 16903/03

  DENISOVA ET MOISEYEVA CONTRE LA RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 34129/03

  In ascertaining whether this condition has been satisfied, the Court must take a comprehensive view of the applicable procedures (see AGOSI, cited above, § 55; Bowler International Unit, cited above, §§ 44-45; Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV; and Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, § 59, 1 April 2010).

 
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 34129/03

  In particular, there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see, among many other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 69, Series A no. 52).
• EGMR, 11.01.2001 - 38460/97

  PLATAKOU v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 34129/03

  The failure to comply with the time-limit cannot therefore be imputed to the company (see, mutatis mutandis, Platakou v. Greece, no. 38460/97, § 39, ECHR 2001-I, and Neshev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 40897/98, 13 March 2003).
• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 54934/00

  Menschenrechte: Verletzung der Privatsphäre und des Briefgeheimnisses durch das …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 34129/03

  Although the Court can and should exercise a certain power of review in this matter, since failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the scope of its task is subject to limits inherent in the subsidiary nature of the Convention, and it cannot question the way in which the domestic courts have interpreted and applied national law except in cases of flagrant non-observance or arbitrariness (see, mutatis mutandis, Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, § 90, ECHR 2006-XI, and Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 46, 8 March 2011).
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 25446/06

  YORDANOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 34129/03

  As for the question whether the applicable domestic legislation meets the relevant Convention requirements, the Court will examine it below in the context of the question whether the interference was necessary for the achievement of the legitimate aim pursued (see, for a similar approach and mutatis mutandis, Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 25446/06, § 108, 24 April 2012).
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 34129/03

  Thus, in the Court's view, the forfeiture can be examined as both a constituent element of the procedure for the control of the use of excise goods (see, mutatis mutandis, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 51, Series A no. 108, and Bowler International Unit v. France, no. 1946/06, § 41, 23 July 2009) and as a measure securing the payment of taxes or penalties (see, mutatis mutandis, Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH, cited above, § 59).
• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 34129/03

  In the Court's view, the lack of any judicial review of the contested measure was undoubtedly a result of deficient domestic legislation, because the relevant law did not provide for such a review, which put the applicant company in a situation of having no safeguards capable to protect it against unjustified interference (contrast Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 46, Series A no. 316-A).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 34129/03

  The Court has consistently held that the terms "law" or "lawful" in the Convention do not merely refer back to domestic law but also relate to the quality of the law, requiring it to be compatible with the rule of law (see, among many other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 67, Series A no. 98).
• EGMR, 30.08.2007 - 44302/02

  J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LTD ET J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LAND LTD c. ROYAUME-UNI

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.02.2021 - C-579/19

  Food Standards Agency

  15 Das Vereinigte Königreich verweist u. a. auf die Urteile des EGMR vom 24. Oktober 1986, AGOSI/Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:1986:1024JUD000911880), und vom 4. März 2014, Microintelect OOD/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2014:0304JUD003412903).
• EGMR - 11917/21 (anhängig)

  BOYDEV v. BULGARIA

  Did the forfeiture by the authorities of the truck and the trailer belonging to the applicant amount to an interference with his peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention? If so, was the interference lawful and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? In particular, was there any possibility that the applicant could effectively challenge the forfeiture (see, Microintelect OOD v. Bulgaria, no. 34129/03, §§ 44-50, 4 March 2014; Ünsped Paket Servisi SaN.
• EGMR - 25112/21 (anhängig)

  OOO MEGA v. BULGARIA

  Did the confiscation of the lorry belonging to the applicant company amount to an interference with its peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention? If so, was the interference lawful and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? In particular, was there any possibility that the applicant company could effectively challenge the confiscation (see Microintelect OOD v. Bulgaria, no. 34129/03, §§ 44-50, 4 March 2014; Ünsped Paket Servisi SaN.
• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 6046/08

  ATANASOV c. BULGARIE

  Il ajoute que, de même, dans ce type d'affaires, la Cour ne peut pas remettre en question l'interprétation et l'application du droit interne par les autorités de l'État, sauf en cas d'inobservation flagrante ou d'application arbitraire de la législation interne pertinente (Microintelect OOD c. Bulgarie, no 34129/03, § 39, 4 mars 2014, Weber et Saravia c. Allemagne (déc.), no 54934/00, § 90, CEDH 2006-XI, et Goranova-Karaeneva c. Bulgarie, no 12739/05, § 46, 8 mars 2011).