Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YILDIRIM contre l'ITALIE

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 7, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YILDIRIM v. ITALY

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 7, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (32)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 52024/99

  ARCURI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

  In addition, it must be ascertained whether the procedure in the domestic legal system afforded the applicant, in the light of the severity of the measure to which he was liable, an adequate opportunity to put his case to the responsible authorities, pleading, as the case might be, illegality or arbitrary and unreasonable conduct (see, respectively, AGOSI, cited above, pp. 18-19, §§ 54-55, and pp. 20-21, §§ 58-60, and Air Canada, cited above, p. 18, § 46; see also, mutatis mutandis, Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII, and Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001).
• EGMR, 04.09.2001 - 52439/99

  RIELA ET AUTRES contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

  In addition, it must be ascertained whether the procedure in the domestic legal system afforded the applicant, in the light of the severity of the measure to which he was liable, an adequate opportunity to put his case to the responsible authorities, pleading, as the case might be, illegality or arbitrary and unreasonable conduct (see, respectively, AGOSI, cited above, pp. 18-19, §§ 54-55, and pp. 20-21, §§ 58-60, and Air Canada, cited above, p. 18, § 46; see also, mutatis mutandis, Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII, and Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001).
• EGMR, 07.10.1988 - 10519/83

  SALABIAKU c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

  However, presumptions of fact or of law operate in every legal system and are not prohibited by the Convention, provided that they are reasonable and respect the rights of the defence (see Arcuri and Others, cited above, and, in the context of criminal proceedings, Salabiaku v. France, judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A, pp. 15-16, § 28 in fine; Pham Hoang v. France, judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 243, p. 21, § 33; and Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, ECHR 2002-VI).

 
• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

  Moreover, it pursued the legitimate aim of preventing clandestine immigration and trafficking in human beings, an aim which serves the general interest (see, mutatis mutandis, Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A, pp. 17-18, §§ 41-42).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

  The Court observes in that connection that the proceedings complained of affected the applicant's right of property, which according to its case-law is a civil right (see Sporrong and Lönnroth, cited above, p. 29, § 79; Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 20, § 43; Arcuri and Others, cited above; and Riela and Others, cited above).
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

  Thus, even though the measure in question led to a deprivation of possessions, it was an instance of control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which authorises States to enact "such laws as [they deem] necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest" (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, pp. 17-18, § 51, and Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, pp. 29-30, §§ 62-63).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

  Thus, even though the measure in question led to a deprivation of possessions, it was an instance of control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which authorises States to enact "such laws as [they deem] necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest" (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, pp. 17-18, § 51, and Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, pp. 29-30, §§ 62-63).
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13191/87

  PHAM HOANG c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

  However, presumptions of fact or of law operate in every legal system and are not prohibited by the Convention, provided that they are reasonable and respect the rights of the defence (see Arcuri and Others, cited above, and, in the context of criminal proceedings, Salabiaku v. France, judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A, pp. 15-16, § 28 in fine; Pham Hoang v. France, judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 243, p. 21, § 33; and Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90

  WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

  The wording of that provision indicates that the starting-point in any assessment of the existence of a penalty is whether the measure in issue is imposed following conviction for a "criminal offence" (see Welch v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 9 February 1995, Series A no. 307-A, p. 13, § 28).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

  In other words, the Court must determine whether a balance was struck between the demands of the general interest and the interest of the individual or individuals concerned (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 26, § 69, and p. 28, § 73, and James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 34, § 50).

• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 1828/06

  G.I.E.M. S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  It is only more rarely that the Court has found this aspect decisive in declaring Article 7 inapplicable (see Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV, and Bowler International Unit v. France, no. 1946/06, § 67, 23 July 2009).

  [14] Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV.

• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

  GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Moreover, those civil proceedings for confiscation clearly formed part of a policy aimed at the prevention and eradication of corruption in the public service, and the Court reiterates that in implementing such policies, respondent States must be given a wide margin of appreciation with regard to what constitutes the appropriate means of applying measures to control the use of property such as the confiscation of all types of proceeds of crime (see, for instance, Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV, and Butler, cited above).
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 47911/15

  TELBIS AND VIZITEU v. ROMANIA

  Property rights being civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that provision was applicable under its civil head (see Silickiene v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, §§ 45-46, 10 April 2012, and Yldirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV).

  In implementing such a policy, the legislature must have a wide margin of appreciation both with regard to identifying the existence of a problem affecting the public interest which requires measures of control and the appropriate way to apply such measures (see Arcuri and Others, decision cited above; see also Silickiene, cited above, § 63, and Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV).

 
• EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 17475/09

  VARVARA v. ITALY

  See Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV, and C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, 26 June 2001.
• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 17910/15

  AEI INVESTMENT INDUSTRY S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  As property rights are civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that provision is applicable under its civil head (see Silickiene v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, §§ 45-46, 10 April 2012, and Yldirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV).

  Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that the seizure in issue involved a finding of guilt subsequent to a criminal charge; it therefore did not constitute a "penalty" within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention (see Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, § 3, ECHR 2003-IV).

• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 3503/08

  ÜNSPED PAKET SERVISI SAN. VE TIC. A.S. v. BULGARIA

  Where possessions which have been used unlawfully are confiscated, such a balance depends on many factors, which include the property owner's behaviour (see Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, 10 April 2003).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 20496/02

  SILICKIENE v. LITHUANIA

  In doing so it leaves the State a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question (see Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  BALSAMO v. SAN MARINO

  It is only more rarely that the Court has found this aspect decisive in declaring Article 7 inapplicable (see Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV, and Bowler International Unit v. France, no. 1946/06, § 67, 23 July 2009).
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 19620/05

  UZAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Elle estime qu'il n'y a pas lieu de comparer sa situation à celle des requérants des affaires citées par le Gouvernement (entre autres Arcuri c. Italie (déc.), no 52024/99, CEDH 2001-VII, et Yildirim c. Italie ((déc.), no 38602/02, CEDH 2003-IV) aux motifs qu'elle n'a aucunement été impliquée dans les infractions reprochées, que ses propriétés n'ont jamais été liées à l'affaire Imarbank, qu'elle n'a jamais pu participer aux faits incriminés et qu'elle a en tout état de cause bénéficié d'une décision de non-lieu.
• EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 28336/02

  GRIFHORST c. FRANCE

  La Cour estime donc que la présente affaire se distingue des affaires similaires dont elle a eu à connaître jusqu'ici, où les mesures de confiscation ordonnées par les autorités internes étaient de deux ordres: soit elles s'appliquaient à l'objet même du délit (AGOSI et Bosphorus Airways précités) ou au moyen utilisé pour le commettre (cf. Air Canada précité, décision C.M. précitée et, mutatis mutandis, Yildirim c. Italie (déc.), no 38602/02, CEDH 2003-IV ), soit elles visaient des biens présumés acquis au moyen d'activités délictueuses, (voir en matière de trafic de stupéfiants décision Phillips précitée et, mutatis mutandis, Welch c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 9 février 1995, série A no 307-A, et en matière d'activités d'organisations de type mafieux arrêt Raimondo précité et décisions Arcuri et Riela précitées), ou des sommes destinées à de telles activités (décision Butler précitée).
• EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 57404/08

  LAVRECHOV v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 70074/01

  VALICO S.R.L. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 32889/09

  IORDACHESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 38072/11

  CREDIT EUROPE LEASING IFN S.A. v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2015 - 16225/08

  ANDONOSKI v.
• EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 64863/13

  YASAR v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 1660/03

  PLECHKOV c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 30.08.2007 - 75909/01

  SUD FONDI SRL ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 22653/08

  VASILEVSKI v.
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 63362/09

  RUMMI v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 26524/04

  DIMITAR KRASTEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 44614/06

  TAS c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 30352/03

  ISMAYILOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.11.2004 - 4251/02

  SALIBA v. MALTA
• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 18077/15

  ESV EUROFERMA S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 9702/04

  GABRIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 10.03.2005 - 47063/99

  VASILEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 15553/15

  S.C. ZORINA INTERNATIONAL S.R.L. v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 502/15

  VOICULESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 16.09.2021 - 15572/17

  DJORDJEVIC c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 17500/15

  MARGARIT AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 15629/04

  MATACHE-GONU v. ROMANIA