Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WEBB v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2004 - 56054/00

  The Court has already had occasion to conclude that the scope of judicial review under English law is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, § 60).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2004 - 56054/00

  It follows that the proceedings which led to the making of the order in the instant case, regardless of whether the order was made under the 1990 Act or the 1994 Act, did not involve "the determination... of a criminal charge" (see also Raimondi v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 20, § 43; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 54024/99, 5 July 2001; Riela v. Italy (dec.), no.52439/99, 4 September 2001).

• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

  GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Instead, proof on a balance of probabilities or a high probability of illicit origins, combined with the inability of the owner to prove the contrary, was found to suffice for the purposes of the proportionality test under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The domestic authorities were further given leeway under the Convention to apply confiscation measures not only to persons directly accused of offences but also to their family members and other close relatives who were presumed to possess and manage the ill-gotten property informally on behalf of the suspected offenders, or who otherwise lacked the necessary bona fide status (see Raimondo, cited above, § 30; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII; Morabito and Others v. Italy (dec.), 58572/00, ECHR 7 June 2005; Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002; Webb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56054/00, 10 February 2004; and Saccoccia v. Austria, no. 69917/01, §§ 87-91, 18 December 2008; compare also with the more recent case of Silickiene, cited above, §§ 60-70, where a confiscation measure was applied to the widow of a corrupt public official).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  BALSAMO v. SAN MARINO

  As regards property presumed to have been acquired either in full or in part with the proceeds of drug-trafficking offences (see Webb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56054/00, 10 February 2004; and Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98) or by criminal organisations involved in drug-trafficking (see Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001 VII and Morabito and Others v. Italy (dec.), 58572/00, ECHR 7 June 2005) or from other illicit mafia-type activities (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 30, Series A no. 281-A), the Court accepted that the confiscation measures were proportionate, even in the absence of a conviction establishing the guilt of the accused.
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 26524/04

  DIMITAR KRASTEV v. BULGARIA

  It was not a result of the applicant's prosecution and conviction (contrast Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, ECHR 2001-VII), nor was it ordered because the forfeited items were deemed to have been unlawfully acquired (contrast Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 29, Series A no. 281-A; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, 5 July 2001; and Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001) or intended for use in illegal activities (contrast Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002; Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV; and Webb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56054/00, 10 February 2004).
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 27803/16

  PIRAS v. SAN MARINO

  As regards property presumed to have been acquired either in full or in part with the proceeds of drug-trafficking offences (see Webb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56054/00, 10 February 2004; and Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98) or by criminal organisations involved in drug-trafficking (see Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001 VII and Morabito and Others v. Italy (dec.), 58572/00, ECHR 7 June 2005) or from other illicit mafia-type activities (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 30, Series A no. 281-A), the Court did not see any problem in finding the confiscation measures to be proportionate, even in the absence of a conviction establishing the guilt of the accused.