Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 30352/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2008,49483
EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 30352/03 (https://dejure.org/2008,49483)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.11.2008 - 30352/03 (https://dejure.org/2008,49483)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. November 2008 - 30352/03 (https://dejure.org/2008,49483)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,49483) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ISMAYILOV v. RUSSIA

    Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of P1-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - award Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

    AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 30352/03
    The Court reiterates its constant approach that a confiscation measure, even though it does involve a deprivation of possessions, constitutes nevertheless control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, 5 July 2001; C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, 26 June 2001; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A, § 34; and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, § 34).

    In the mentioned case the Court pointed out in general terms, as the Commission did in the past, that "under the general principles of law recognised in all Contracting States, smuggled goods may, as a rule, be the object of confiscation" (AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, § 53).

  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84

    TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 30352/03
    On many occasions our Court has observed that the Court's power to review compliance with domestic law is limited, it being in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply that law (see Chappell v the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152-A, p. 23; The Traktorer Aktiebolag v. Sweden, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, p. 23).
  • EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10461/83

    CHAPPELL c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 30352/03
    On many occasions our Court has observed that the Court's power to review compliance with domestic law is limited, it being in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply that law (see Chappell v the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152-A, p. 23; The Traktorer Aktiebolag v. Sweden, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, p. 23).
  • EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 41087/98

    PHILLIPS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 30352/03
    On that ground the Court distinguishes the present case from the cases in which the confiscation measure extended to the assets which were the proceeds of a criminal offence (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, §§ 9-18, ECHR 2001-VII), which were deemed to have been unlawfully acquired (see Riela and Arcuri, both cited above, and Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, § 29) or were intended for use in illegal activities (see Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002).
  • EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

    YILDIRIM contre l'ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 30352/03
    This element distinguishes the instant case from the cases in which the confiscation measure applied either to goods whose importation was prohibited (see AGOSI, cited above, concerning a ban on import of gold coins; Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, ECHR 2005-VI, concerning the banning of Yugoslavian aircraft falling under the sanctions regime) or vehicles used for transport of prohibited substances or trafficking in human beings (see Air Canada, cited above; C.M. v. France (dec.), cited above, and Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV).
  • EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

    Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 30352/03
    This element distinguishes the instant case from the cases in which the confiscation measure applied either to goods whose importation was prohibited (see AGOSI, cited above, concerning a ban on import of gold coins; Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, ECHR 2005-VI, concerning the banning of Yugoslavian aircraft falling under the sanctions regime) or vehicles used for transport of prohibited substances or trafficking in human beings (see Air Canada, cited above; C.M. v. France (dec.), cited above, and Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV).
  • EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

    AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 30352/03
    The Court reiterates its constant approach that a confiscation measure, even though it does involve a deprivation of possessions, constitutes nevertheless control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, 5 July 2001; C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, 26 June 2001; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A, § 34; and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, § 34).
  • EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86

    BENDENOUN c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 30352/03
    Thus, the confiscation measure was not intended as pecuniary compensation for damage - as the State had not suffered any loss as a result of the applicant's failure to declare the money - but was deterrent and punitive in its purpose (compare Bendenoun v. France, judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 284, § 47).
  • EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

    RAIMONDO v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 30352/03
    On that ground the Court distinguishes the present case from the cases in which the confiscation measure extended to the assets which were the proceeds of a criminal offence (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, §§ 9-18, ECHR 2001-VII), which were deemed to have been unlawfully acquired (see Riela and Arcuri, both cited above, and Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, § 29) or were intended for use in illegal activities (see Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 23.11.2023 - C-351/22

    Generalanwältin Capeta: Der Gerichtshof ist nicht dafür zuständig, allgemeine

    6 Das vorlegende Gericht bezieht sich auf das Urteil des EGMR vom 6. April 2009, 1smayilov/Russland (CE:ECHR:2008:1106JUD003035203), und das Urteil des EGMR vom 9. Oktober 2009, Moon/Frankreich (CE:ECHR:2009:0709JUD003997303) .

    Vgl. hierzu z. B. auch EGMR, Urteil vom 6. April 2009, 1smayilov/Russland (CE:ECHR:2008:1106JUD003035203, § 35), und EGMR, Urteil vom 24. September 2021, 1meri/Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2021:0624JUD007766814, § 86).

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 26.06.2018 - C-384/17

    Link Logistik N&N - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Beförderung auf dem

    21 Zur Feststellung eines Verstoßes gegen Art. 1 des ersten Zusatzprotokolls wegen Unverhältnismäßigkeit von Sanktionen vgl. z. B. Urteile des EGMR vom 11. Januar 2007, Mamidakis/Griechenland (CE:ECHR:2007:0111JUD003553304, §§ 47 und 48), vom 6. November 2008, 1smayilov/Russland (CE:ECHR:2008:1106JUD003035203, § 38), und vom 26. Februar 2009, Grifhorst/Frankreich (CE:ECHR:2009:0226JUD002833602, §§ 94 bis 106).
  • EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 78661/11

    YASAROGLU c. TÜRKIYE

    La Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle, dans pareille situation, la sanction doit correspondre à la gravité du manquement constaté, à savoir un manquement à l'obligation de déclaration, et non pas à la gravité d'un manquement présumé non avéré, tel qu'un blanchiment d'argent ou une fraude fiscale (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Ismayilov c. Russie, no 30352/03, § 38, 6 novembre 2008).
  • EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 68504/11

    STOYAN NIKOLOV c. BULGARIE

    La Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle, dans pareille situation, la sanction doit correspondre à la gravité du manquement constaté, à savoir un manquement à l'obligation de déclaration, et non pas à la gravité d'un manquement présumé non avéré, tel qu'un blanchiment d'argent ou une fraude fiscale (Ismayilov c. Russie, no 30352/03, § 38, 6 novembre 2008, et Grifhorst, précité, § 102).
  • EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 50514/13

    SAQUETTI IGLESIAS c. ESPAGNE

    Il s'agit là d'une exigence que la Cour a eu l'occasion de rappeler lorsqu'elle a examiné des sanctions douanières sous l'angle de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (voir Ismayilov c. Russie, no 30352/03, §§ 34-38, 6 novembre 2008, Gabric c. Croatie, no 9702/04, §§ 36-40, 5 février 2009, Moon c. France, no 39973/03, §§ 49-51, 9 juillet 2009, et Boljevic c. Croatie, no 43492/11, §§ 42-45, 31 janvier 2017).
  • EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 20611/10

    TOGRUL c. BULGARIE

    La Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle, dans pareille situation, la sanction doit correspondre à la gravité du manquement constaté, à savoir le manquement à l'obligation de déclaration, et non pas à la gravité d'un manquement présumé non avéré, tel que le blanchiment d'argent ou la fraude fiscale (Ismayilov c. Russie, no 30352/03, § 38, 6 novembre 2008, et Grifhorst, précité, § 102).
  • EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 32889/09

    IORDACHESCU c. ROUMANIE

    Il s'ensuit que la nécessité de rechercher si un juste équilibre a été maintenu entre les exigences de l'intérêt général de la communauté et les impératifs de la sauvegarde des droits fondamentaux de l'individu ne peut se faire sentir que lorsqu'il s'est avéré que l'ingérence litigieuse a respecté le principe de la légalité et n'était pas arbitraire (Frizen c. Russie, no 58254/00, § 33, 24 mars 2005, Baklanov c. Russie, no 68443/01, § 39, 9 juin 2005, Ismayilov c. Russie, no 30352/03, § 31, 6 novembre 2008, et Varvara c. Italie, no 17475/09, § 84, 29 octobre 2013).
  • EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 484/08

    RADU c. ROUMANIE

    Ensuite, la Cour estime que la saisie des biens peut passer pour nécessaire dans l'intérêt d'une bonne administration de la justice, ce qui constitue un but légitime relevant de «l'intérêt général» de la communauté (mutatis mutandis, Phillips c. Royaume-Uni, no 41087/98, § 52, CEDH 2001-VII et Ismayilov c. Russie, no 30352/03, § 33, 6 novembre 2008).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht