Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POKIS c. LETTONIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POKIS v. LATVIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 35178/97

  ANKARCRONA c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 528/02

  It has reached such a decision firstly in cases where the applicant was the sole owner or shareholder of the company, or where he was carrying out his business through the company (see, for example, G.J. v. Luxembourg, no. 21156/93, § 24, 26 October 2000; Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, ECHR 2000-VI; and Camberrow MM5 AD v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 50357/99, 1 April 2004).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 528/02

  Furthermore, in civil matters, Article 6 § 1 constitutes a lex specialis in relation to the safeguards of Article 13. Hence, as a general rule, where the question is one of access to a court or of fair process, the requirements of Article 13 are absorbed by those of Article 6 § 1 (see Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom, 10 July 1998, § 77, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 146, ECHR 2000-XI; and Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 80, 15 July 2003).
• EGMR, 16.01.2001 - 35730/97

  OFFERHAUS and OFFERHAUS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 528/02

  Such decisions have related, secondly, to cases where the impugned measures had a direct bearing on the rights inherent in owning stocks or shares, as is the case with the cancelling of shares or the obligation to exchange them at a disadvantageous rate (see Olczak v. Poland (dec.), no. 30417/96, ECHR 2002-X, and Offerhaus v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 35730/97, 16 January 2001).

 
• EGMR, 15.07.2003 - 33400/96

  ERNST ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 528/02

  Furthermore, in civil matters, Article 6 § 1 constitutes a lex specialis in relation to the safeguards of Article 13. Hence, as a general rule, where the question is one of access to a court or of fair process, the requirements of Article 13 are absorbed by those of Article 6 § 1 (see Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom, 10 July 1998, § 77, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 146, ECHR 2000-XI; and Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 80, 15 July 2003).
• EGMR, 01.04.2004 - 50357/99

  CAMBERROW MM5 AD v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 528/02

  It has reached such a decision firstly in cases where the applicant was the sole owner or shareholder of the company, or where he was carrying out his business through the company (see, for example, G.J. v. Luxembourg, no. 21156/93, § 24, 26 October 2000; Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, ECHR 2000-VI; and Camberrow MM5 AD v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 50357/99, 1 April 2004).
• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 62543/00

  GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 528/02

  Finally, the outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question: mere tenuous connections or remote consequences are not sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see, among many other authorities, Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 43, ECHR 2004-III).
• EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 2507/03

  AMAT-G LTD AND MEBAGISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 528/02

  It reiterates that, in circumstances similar to those in the present case, it has consistently refused to accept that shareholders complaining of measures winding up a company or of other infringements of a company's rights were "victims" of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, in addition to the case-law cited under Article 6 § 1, Amat-G Ltd and Mebaghishvili v. Georgia, no. 2507/03, §§ 33-34, ECHR 2005-VIII; Minda and Others v. Hungary (dec.), no. 6690/02, 13 September 2005; and Veselá and Loyka v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 54811/00, 13 December 2005).

• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11

  PIRTTIMÄKI v. FINLAND

  First of all, the legal entities involved in these proceedings were not the same: in the first set of proceedings it was the applicant and in the second set of proceedings the company (see Isaksen v. Norway (dec.), no. 13596/02, 2 October 2003; and, mutatis mutandis, Pokis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 528/02, ECHR 2006-XV; and Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, §§ 66-68, Series A no. 330-A).
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 36480/07

  LEKIC v. SLOVENIA

  In this connection, the Court has reached an affirmative conclusion, inter alia, in cases where the impugned measures had a direct bearing on the rights inherent in owning stocks or shares, as is the case with the cancelling of shares or the obligation to exchange them at a disadvantageous rate (see Olczak v. Poland (dec.), no. 30417/96, §§ 60-62, ECHR 2002-X, and Pokis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 528/02, ECHR 2006-XV).
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 5294/14

  ALBERT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  In examining the question as to what constitutes an act "aimed at the rights of the shareholder as such", the Court has refused to accept the mere loss of value of the shares as the only decisive factor in this connection (see Agrotexim and Others, cited above, § 64); it has considered whether the likely effects of the measure in question not only concerned the applicant's interests in the company, but were directly decisive for his or her individual rights (see, for example, Pokis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 528/02, ECHR 2006-XV).

 
• EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 947/13

  HEINANEN v. FINLAND

  First of all, the legal entities involved in these proceedings were not the same: in the first set of proceedings it was the applicant in his personal capacity and in the second set of proceedings the two companies whose legal representative the applicant was (see Isaksen v. Norway (dec.), no. 13596/02, 2 October 2003; and mutatis mutandis, Pokis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 528/02, ECHR 2006-XV; and Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, §§ 66-68, Series A no. 330-A).
• EGMR, 21.02.2008 - 18497/03

  RAVON ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Il s'agit en l'espèce de vérifier si la procédure à laquelle les requérants revendiquent l'accès vise à voir trancher une «contestation» - réelle et sérieuse - sur un «droit» de «nature civile» que l'on peut prétendre, au moins de manière défendable, reconnu en droit interne (voir, parmi de nombreux autres, les arrêts Taskin et autres c. Turquie du 10 novembre 2004, no 46117/99, CEDH 2004 - X, § 130, Balmer-Schafroth et autres c. Suisse du 26 août 1997, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-IV, § 32, et Athanassoglou et autres c. Suisse [GC] du 6 avril 2000, no 27644/95, CEDH 2000-IV, § 43), étant entendu que l'article 6 § 1 n'assure par lui-même aux «droits et obligations de caractère civil» aucun contenu déterminé ni ne vise à créer de nouveaux droits matériels dénués de base juridique dans l'Etat concerné (voir l'arrêt W. c. Royaume-Uni du 8 juillet 1987, série A no 121, § 73, et la décision PoÄ is c. Lettonie du 5 octobre 2006, no 528/02).
• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 16294/03

  S.C. BARTOLO PROD COM S.R.L. ET BOTOMEI c. ROUMANIE

  Encore faut-il qu'il ait des intérêts personnels dans l'objet de la requête (Olczak c. Pologne (déc.), no 30417/96, §§ 58-60, CEDH 2002-X (extraits), et Pokis c. Lettonie (déc.), no 528/02, CEDH 2006-XV).
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 25787/04

  GARDEAN ET S.c. GROUP 95 SA c. ROUMANIE

  Encore faut-il qu'il ait des intérêts personnels dans l'objet de la requête, notamment visant une atteinte à ses droits en tant qu'actionnaire (Olczak c. Pologne (déc.), no 30417/96, §§ 58-60, CEDH 2002-X (extraits), et Pokis c. Lettonie (déc.), no 528/02, CEDH 2006-XV).
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 25830/03

  GEORGESCU ET PRODAS HOLDING S.A. c. ROUMANIE

  S'agissant de la présente requête, la Cour observe que la procédure litigieuse ne concerne que la société requérante et que c'est cette dernière, en tant que personne morale, et non le premier requérant en sa capacité personnelle, qui a fait l'objet de la procédure d'exécution forcée (Pokis c. Lettonie (déc.), no 528/02, CEDH 2006-XV).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 3240/03

  PANA ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  C'est la banque en tant que personne morale, et non les requérants en leurs capacités personnelles, qui a fait l'objet de la procédure de liquidation (Pokis c. Lettonie (déc.), no 528/02, CEDH 2006-XV).
• EGMR, 23.11.2017 - 6248/04

  INVESTAR INTERNATIONAL HOLDING S.A. ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  Encore faut-il qu'il ait des intérêts personnels dans l'objet de la requête (Olczak c. Pologne (déc.), no 30417/96, §§ 58-60, CEDH 2002-X (extraits), et Pokis c. Lettonie (déc.), no 528/02, CEDH 2006-XV).
• EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 15396/12

  VP-KULJETUS OY AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 74120/14

  S.C. MIC PETROCHIM INDUSTRIE S.R.L. c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 37792/04

  LUCA ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 57713/09

  THEODORAKIS ET THEODORAKIS-TOURISME ET HOTELS S.A. c. GRECE (N° 2)