Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SACCOCCIA c. AUTRICHE

  (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SACCOCCIA v. AUSTRIA

  (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 69917/01
• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 69917/01

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90

  WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 69917/01

  Distinguishing the present case from Welch v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 9 February 1995, Series A no. 307-A), the Government argued that the forfeiture ordered by the United States could not be regarded as a "penalty" within the meaning of Article 7. Follow though it did upon the applicant's conviction, it merely aimed at neutralising the proceeds of the applicant's criminal conduct.
• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 69917/01

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 does not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State's primary legislation to be challenged before a national authority on grounds that it is contrary to the Convention (Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 137, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 69917/01

  As regards the applicability of the criminal limb of Article 6 to forfeiture proceedings in general, the Court reiterates that it has been found not to apply to forfeiture proceedings unrelated to any criminal proceedings against the applicant (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, p. 22, § 65; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A, p. 19, §§ 51-52; and, as a recent authority, Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, ECHR 2002-VI).

 
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 69917/01

  In so far as he complains that the 1998 Treaty entered into force while the proceedings were already pending, the Court observes that the present case is not one of interference of retroactive legislation in pending proceedings (see Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 82, § 49; and the National & Provincial Building Society v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 October 1997, Reports 1997-VII, § 112).
• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 69917/01

  As regards the applicability of the criminal limb of Article 6 to forfeiture proceedings in general, the Court reiterates that it has been found not to apply to forfeiture proceedings unrelated to any criminal proceedings against the applicant (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, p. 22, § 65; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A, p. 19, §§ 51-52; and, as a recent authority, Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 13.05.2003 - 59290/00

  MONTCORNET DE CAUMONT contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 69917/01

  Finally, the Court reiterates that matters relating to the execution of a sentence do not fall under the criminal limb of Article 6 (see, Montcornet de Caumont v. France (dec.), no. 59290/00, ECHR 2003-VII, with further references).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 26.11.2019 - C-717/18

  Generalanwalt Bobek: Bei der Prüfung des Höchstmaßes von mindestens drei Jahren, …

  Vgl. zu weiteren Fällen im Bereich der internationalen Zusammenarbeit Entscheidung des EGMR über die Zulässigkeit vom 5. Juli 2007, Saccoccia/Österreich (CE:ECHR:2007:0705DEC006991701).