Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROLA v. SLOVENIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege;Criminal offence);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROLA v. SLOVENIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege;Criminal offence);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ROLA v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 12096/14

  37685/10 and 22768/12, § 149, 20 March 2018).

  However, the Chamber has held that at this stage of proceedings it is precluded from examining the applicant's complaint under Article 6. The reluctance to re-communicate the case to the Government under that Article is regrettable, especially in the light of the Court's self-assumption, with an increasingly high count of cases, of its role as "master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case", even contrary to "the characterisation [of these matters] given by an applicant [or] a government" (see, among abundant authorities, Radomilja and Others v. Croatia, [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12), 20 March 2018).

• EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90

  WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 12096/14

  On the other hand, in Welch v. the United Kingdom (9 February 1995, § 33, Series A no. 307-A) the Court considered that a confiscation order imposed following the applicant's criminal conviction had amounted to a penalty taking into account, in particular, that it had resulted from sweeping statutory assumptions that all property passing through the offender's hands over a certain period had been the fruit of drug trafficking unless he had been able to prove otherwise; that the confiscation order had been directed to the proceeds involved in drug dealing and had not been limited to actual enrichment or profit; that the trial judge had had discretion in fixing the amount of the order, taking into consideration the degree of culpability of the accused; and that there had been the possibility of imprisonment in default of payment by the offender.

  (a) "this factor is not in itself decisive, since many non-penal measures of a preventive nature may have a substantial impact on the person concerned" (this quote is imported from Welch v. the United Kingdom, 9 February 1995, Series A no. 307-A, to which reference is made);.

• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 55391/13

  RAMOS NUNES DE CARVALHO E SÁ v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 12096/14

  This stance was recently confirmed in Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal ([GC], nos. 55391/13 and two others, 6 November 2018), with a caveat (which, in turn, had been stipulated in the Court's case-law since the mid-1980s) that a cumulative approach was allowed "where separate analysis of each criterion [did] not make it possible to reach a clear conclusion as to the existence of a criminal charge" (ibid., § 122).

 
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 12096/14

  It should also be noted that in the above-cited case of A and B the Grand Chamber had not departed (as regards the doctrinal statements, and I will pass over the concrete finding in that case) from the principled stance (as formulated earlier in Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, § 53, ECHR 2009) that, although a cumulative approach cannot be excluded, the second and the third criteria are "alternative, not necessarily cumulative" (A and B, cited above, § 105).
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 38292/15

  PALMÉN v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 12096/14

  The Court reiterates that the notion of "criminal procedure" in the text of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention, respectively (see paragraph 54 above; and see Palmén v. Sweden (dec.), no. 38292/15, § 20, 22 March 2016, and Göktan v. France, no. 33402/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84

  TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 12096/14

  The Court finds that the revocation of the applicant's licence constituted a measure of control of the use of property, which falls to be considered under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, § 55, Series A no. 159, and Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 131, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 23780/08

  MALIK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 12096/14

  Where, as a consequence of the restrictions, the applicant's income and the value of his clientele and, more generally, his business, had fallen, the Court held that there had been an interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, § 90, 13 March 2012).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 12096/14

  The Court reiterates at the outset that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies only to a person's existing possessions; it does not guarantee the right to acquire possessions (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 50, Series A no. 31, and Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

  SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 12096/14

  The Court reiterates at the outset that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies only to a person's existing possessions; it does not guarantee the right to acquire possessions (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 50, Series A no. 31, and Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 29514/05

  VAN DER VELDEN c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 12096/14

  The measure in question was imposed completely separately from the ordinary sentencing procedure (see paragraph 55 above; see also Van der Velden v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 29514/05, ECHR 2006-X, and contrast Gouarré Patte v. Andorra, no. 33427/10, § 30, 12 January 2016).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 20.10.2022 - C-412/21

  Dual Prod - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Verbrauchsteuer - Richtlinie …

  30 EGMR, Urteil vom 4. Juni 2019, Rola/Slowenien (CE:ECHR:2019:0604JUD001209614, §§ 60 bis 67 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 19750/13

  GROSAM v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  12096/14 and 39335/16, § 56, 4 June 2019).
• EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 69291/12

  PELEKI c. GRÈCE

  La Cour rappelle aussi que le fait que des actes susceptibles de conduire à une sanction disciplinaire constituent également des infractions n'est pas suffisant pour considérer qu'une personne responsable selon le droit disciplinaire est « accusée'd'un crime (Rola c. Slovénie, nos 12096/14 et 39335/16, § 56, 4 juin 2019 ; avec référence à Müller-Hartburg c. Autriche, no 47195/06, 19 février 2013, et à Biagioli c. Saint-Marin (déc.), no 8162/13, 8 juillet 2014).
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 31399/14

  USNUL v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  12096/14 and 39335/16, § 66, 4 June 2019; and Xhoxhaj v. Albania, no. 15227/19, § 245, 9 February 2021).