Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DASSA FOUNDATION AND OTHERS v. LIECHTENSTEIN

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

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 26.01.1999 - 42293/98

  ADAMSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 696/05

  Further relevant factors to be examined are the characterisation of the measure under domestic law, its nature and purpose, the procedures involved in its making and implementation, and its severity (see Welch, cited above, p. 13, § 28; Adamson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42293/98, 26 January 1999; Van der Velden v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 29514/05, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 29514/05

  VAN DER VELDEN c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 696/05

  Further relevant factors to be examined are the characterisation of the measure under domestic law, its nature and purpose, the procedures involved in its making and implementation, and its severity (see Welch, cited above, p. 13, § 28; Adamson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42293/98, 26 January 1999; Van der Velden v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 29514/05, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 23395/02

  STARIKOW contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 696/05

  Therefore, Article 6 does not apply to proceedings in which only interim or provisional measures are taken prior to the decision on the merits, as such proceedings do not, as a rule, affect the merits of the case and thus do not yet involve the determination of civil rights and obligations (see, among many other authorities, Kress v. France (dec.), no. 39594/98, 29 February 2000; Starikow v. Germany (dec.), no. 23395/02, 10 April 2003; Libert v. Belgium (dec.), no. 44734/98, 8 July 2004; Dogmoch v. Germany (dec.), no. 26315/03, ECHR 2006-...).

 
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 44734/98

  LIBERT contre la BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 696/05

  Therefore, Article 6 does not apply to proceedings in which only interim or provisional measures are taken prior to the decision on the merits, as such proceedings do not, as a rule, affect the merits of the case and thus do not yet involve the determination of civil rights and obligations (see, among many other authorities, Kress v. France (dec.), no. 39594/98, 29 February 2000; Starikow v. Germany (dec.), no. 23395/02, 10 April 2003; Libert v. Belgium (dec.), no. 44734/98, 8 July 2004; Dogmoch v. Germany (dec.), no. 26315/03, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 18.09.2006 - 26315/03

  M. Y. D. gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 696/05

  Therefore, Article 6 does not apply to proceedings in which only interim or provisional measures are taken prior to the decision on the merits, as such proceedings do not, as a rule, affect the merits of the case and thus do not yet involve the determination of civil rights and obligations (see, among many other authorities, Kress v. France (dec.), no. 39594/98, 29 February 2000; Starikow v. Germany (dec.), no. 23395/02, 10 April 2003; Libert v. Belgium (dec.), no. 44734/98, 8 July 2004; Dogmoch v. Germany (dec.), no. 26315/03, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 15917/89

  JAMIL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 696/05

  To render the protection afforded by that Article effective, the Court must remain free to go behind appearances and assess for itself whether a particular measure amounts in substance to a "penalty" within the meaning of this provision (see Welch v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 9 February 1995, Series A no. 307-A, p. 13, § 27; Jamil v. France, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 317-B, p. 27, § 30).
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 696/05

  The result of the proceedings in question must thus be directly decisive for such a right or obligation (see Fayed v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, pp. 45-46, § 56; Zlínsat, spol. s r.o. v. Bulgaria, no. 57785/00, § 72, 15 June 2006).
• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 696/05

  This concerned, in particular, cases in which an interim decision in fact already partially determined the rights of the parties in relation to the final claim (see, in particular, Markass Car Hire Ltd v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 51591/99, 23 October 2001, and Zlínsat, cited above, § 72) or in which an interim order immediately led to the institution of main proceedings deciding on the dispute in question (see, in particular, Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A, p. 21, § 61).
• EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90

  WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 696/05

  To render the protection afforded by that Article effective, the Court must remain free to go behind appearances and assess for itself whether a particular measure amounts in substance to a "penalty" within the meaning of this provision (see Welch v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 9 February 1995, Series A no. 307-A, p. 13, § 27; Jamil v. France, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 317-B, p. 27, § 30).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 696/05

  It recalls that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically; in reviewing whether it has been observed it is essential to have regard to the particular circumstances of each individual case (see Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 40, p. 18, § 35).

• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 17056/06

  Micallef ./. Malta

  The same principle has been re-affirmed and applied in the subsequent cases of Starikow v. Germany (dec.), no. 23395/02, 10 April 2003 (provisional grant of parental authority); Libert v. Belgium (dec.), no. 44734/98, 8 July 2004 (interim stay of execution of a judgment); Dogmoch v. Germany (dec.), no. 26315/03, 18 September 2006, ECHR 2006- (order for the attachment of the applicant's assets); Dassa Foundation and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 696/05, 10 July 2007 (order for seizure of applicants" assets); and Saarekallas Oü v. Estonia, no. 11548/04, 8 November 2007 (prohibition on disposal of applicant company's building).
• EGMR, 10.09.2013 - 663/11

  NEDYALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The Court has already held that the provisional seizure of assets with a view to their forfeiture does not engage Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal limb (see Dogmoch v. Germany (dec.), no. 26315/03, ECHR 2006-XIII, and Dassa Foundation and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 696/05, 10 July 2007).
• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 265/17

  YORDANOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  A confiscation order in respect of criminally acquired property operates in the general interest as a deterrent to those considering engaging in criminal activities, and also guarantees that crime does not pay (see Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, § 58, 1 April 2010, with further references to Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 52, ECHR 2001-VII, and Dassa Foundation and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 696/05, 10 July 2007).

 
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 63362/09

  RUMMI v. ESTONIA

  Thus, a confiscation order in respect of criminally acquired property operates in the general interest as a deterrent to those considering engaging in criminal activities, and also guarantees that crime does not pay (see Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, § 58, 1 April 2010, with further references to Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 52, ECHR 2001-VII, and Dassa Foundation and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 696/05, 10 July 2007).
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 12951/11

  VEITS v. ESTONIA

  Thus, a confiscation order in respect of criminally acquired property operates in the general interest as a deterrent to those considering engaging in criminal activities, and also guarantees that crime does not pay (see Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, § 58, 1 April 2010, with further references to Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 52, ECHR 2001-VII, and Dassa Foundation and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 696/05, 10 July 2007).
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 26524/04

  DIMITAR KRASTEV v. BULGARIA

  s r.o. v. Bulgaria, no. 57785/00, § 72, 15 June 2006, concerning the determination of civil rights by a prosecutor; and contrast Dogmoch v. Germany (dec.), no. 26315/03, 18 September 2006, and Dassa Foundation and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 696/05, 10 July 2007, concerning the provisional freezing of assets with a view to their forfeiture).
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 16903/03

  DENISOVA AND MOISEYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Thus, the making of a confiscation order in respect of criminally acquired property operates in the general interest as a deterrent to those considering engaging in criminal activities and also guarantees that crime does not pay (compare Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 52, ECHR 2001-VII, and Dassa Foundation and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 696/05, 10 July 2007).