Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALBERT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Inadmissible (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALBERT ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

  Irrecevable (Art. 34) Requêtes individuelles;(Art. 34) Victime (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 5294/14
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 5294/14
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 5294/14

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 21.12.2017 - 42758/05

  FELDMAN AND SLOVYANSKYY BANK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 5294/14

  They also took the view that, applying the Court's criteria from the cases of Olczak v. Poland ((dec.), no. 30417/96, ECHR 2002-X (extracts)), Credit and Industrial Bank v. the Czech Republic (no. 29010/95, 21 October 2003), Feldman and Slovyanskyy Bank v. Ukraine (no. 42758/05, 21 December 2017) and Süzer and Eksen Holding A.??.

  The Court has recognised that this principle may be justifiably qualified in two kinds of situations, firstly, where the company and its shareholders are so closely identified with each other that it is artificial to distinguish between the two (see, as a recent example, KIPS DOO and Drekalovic v. Montenegro, no. 28766/06, § 87, 26 June 2018) and, secondly, if it is warranted by "exceptional circumstances" (see, as recent examples, Feldman and Slovyanskyy Bank v. Ukraine, no. 42758/05, §§ 28-29, 21 December 2017, and Vladimirova v. Russia, no. 21863/05, §§ 40-41, 10 April 2018).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 35178/97

  ANKARCRONA c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 5294/14

  The Court underlines that the reason for accepting victim status in such cases is that there is "no risk of differences of opinion among shareholders or between shareholders and a board of directors as to the reality of infringement of Convention rights or to the most appropriate way of reacting to such an infringement" (see Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01

  ASSOCIATION SOS ATTENTATS ET DE BOERY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 5294/14

  The Court finds that the four applicants" intention to withdraw from the proceedings instituted before the Court has been unequivocally established (see Association SOS Attentats and de Boëry v. France [GC], (dec.), no. 76642/01, § 30, ECHR 2006-XIV; and Berlusconi v Italy [GC], no. 58428/13, § 65, 27 November 2018).

 
• EGMR, 21.10.2003 - 29010/95

  CREDIT INDUSTRIEL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 5294/14

  They also took the view that, applying the Court's criteria from the cases of Olczak v. Poland ((dec.), no. 30417/96, ECHR 2002-X (extracts)), Credit and Industrial Bank v. the Czech Republic (no. 29010/95, 21 October 2003), Feldman and Slovyanskyy Bank v. Ukraine (no. 42758/05, 21 December 2017) and Süzer and Eksen Holding A.??.
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 5294/14

  For instance, in the Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others judgment (29 November 1991, § 42, Series A no. 222), where the third applicant (Mr Healy) was the sole shareholder of the second applicant (Healy Holdings) which wholly owned the first applicant (Pine Valley), the Court noted that "... Pine Valley and Healy Holdings were no more than vehicles through which Mr. Healy proposed to implement the development...".
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 58428/13

  Ämtersperre wegen Steuerbetrugs: Streichung des Berlusconi-Verfahrens

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 5294/14

  The Court finds that the four applicants" intention to withdraw from the proceedings instituted before the Court has been unequivocally established (see Association SOS Attentats and de Boëry v. France [GC], (dec.), no. 76642/01, § 30, ECHR 2006-XIV; and Berlusconi v Italy [GC], no. 58428/13, § 65, 27 November 2018).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 5294/14

  The Convention does not provide for the institution of an actio popularis, meaning that applicants may not complain about a provision of domestic law, a domestic practice or public acts simply because they appear to contravene the Convention (see, among other authorities, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 101, ECHR 2014, and Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 33, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 528/02

  POKIS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 5294/14

  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).

• EuG, 12.10.2022 - T-502/19

  Corneli/ EZB

  Ebenso unterscheidet der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte zwischen Klagen, die von Anteilseignern zur Wahrung ihrer eigenen Rechte erhoben werden, und Klagen, die von ihnen zum Schutz der Rechte des Unternehmens erhoben werden (EGMR, Urteil vom 7. Juli 2020, Albert u. a./Ungarn, CE:ECHR:2020:0707JUD000529414).
• EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 39107/18

  MICKOVSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  In such circumstances, and having regard to the particular nature of a bailiff's office under the relevant domestic law, according to which the legal person is closely linked to a sole individual qualified to practise the profession (see paragraph 17 above), the Court considers that both are so closely identified with each other that it would be artificial to distinguish between them in this context (see, mutatis mutandis, Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey, no. 16163/90, § 21, 31 July 2003; Kin-Stib and Majkic v. Serbia, no. 12312/05, § 74, 20 April 2010; Vujovic and Lipa D.O.O. v. Montenegro, no. 18912/15, § 30, 20 February 2018; and Albert and Others v. Hungary [GC], no. 5294/14, §§ 157-58, 7 July 2020).