Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MEROT D.O.O. AND STORITVE TIR D.O.O. v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08

  However, it is important to note that the Court has consistently held that confiscation measures resulting in deprivation of property of third persons, different from the accused, entail determination of those persons" "civil rights and obligations" rather than determination of "a criminal charge" against them (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, §§ 64-66, Series A no. 108; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, §§ 52-56, Series A no. 316-A; Arcuri v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII; and Silickiene, cited above, §§ 45-46).
• EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 52024/99

  ARCURI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08

  However, it is important to note that the Court has consistently held that confiscation measures resulting in deprivation of property of third persons, different from the accused, entail determination of those persons" "civil rights and obligations" rather than determination of "a criminal charge" against them (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, §§ 64-66, Series A no. 108; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, §§ 52-56, Series A no. 316-A; Arcuri v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII; and Silickiene, cited above, §§ 45-46).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08

  As regards the Government's argument that the applicant companies in their constitutional complaints had not relied on the provision of the Constitution guaranteeing the right of ownership or on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court reiterates that in order to comply with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention it is not necessary for the Convention right to be explicitly raised at the domestic level as long as the same complaint, which is later submitted to the Court, was raised in domestic proceedings at least "in substance" (see, for example, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 236; Ahmet Sadık v. Greece, 15 November 1996, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; and Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 45, Series A no. 104).

 
• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08

  However, it is important to note that the Court has consistently held that confiscation measures resulting in deprivation of property of third persons, different from the accused, entail determination of those persons" "civil rights and obligations" rather than determination of "a criminal charge" against them (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, §§ 64-66, Series A no. 108; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, §§ 52-56, Series A no. 316-A; Arcuri v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII; and Silickiene, cited above, §§ 45-46).
• EGMR, 28.08.1986 - 9228/80

  GLASENAPP c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08

  As regards the Government's argument that the applicant companies in their constitutional complaints had not relied on the provision of the Constitution guaranteeing the right of ownership or on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court reiterates that in order to comply with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention it is not necessary for the Convention right to be explicitly raised at the domestic level as long as the same complaint, which is later submitted to the Court, was raised in domestic proceedings at least "in substance" (see, for example, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 236; Ahmet Sadık v. Greece, 15 November 1996, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; and Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 45, Series A no. 104).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08

  However, as the Court's case-law bears out (see paragraph 34 above), the mere fact that an applicant has submitted his or her case to the various competent courts does not itself constitute compliance with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as even in those jurisdictions where the domestic courts are able, or even obliged to examine the case of their own motion applicants are not dispensed from raising before them the complaint subsequently made to the Court (see, for example, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 39, Series A no. 40; Dalipi v. Greece (dec.), no. 51588/08, § 20, 26 June 2012; and TrÅ«ps v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58497/08, 20 November 2012).
• EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 57655/08

  SUHADOLC v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08

  In particular, in the present case the issues pertinent to the confiscation of the applicant companies" yachts were purely legal and did not require the hearing of witnesses or the taking of other oral evidence (see, for example, Saccoccia v. Austria, no. 69917/01, §§ 77-80, 18 December 2008 and, a fortiori, Suhadolc v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 57655/08, 17 May 2011).

• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  In the context of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, most notably in cases involving issues of exhaustion in substance, the Court has, along with the factual situation presented in the light of national law, placed emphasis on the Convention arguments relied upon at the national level (see, for example, Guzzardi, cited above, § 72; Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 45, Series A no. 104; Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, §§ 32-36, Series A no. 200; B. v. France, 25 March 1992, §§ 37-39, Series A no. 232-C; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, §§ 24-32, Series A no. 236; Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands, 23 February 1995, §§ 47-49, Series A no. 306-B; Ahmet Sadik v. Greece, 15 November 1996, §§ 27-34, Reports 1996-V; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, §§ 33-39, ECHR 1999-I; Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, §§ 38-42, ECHR 2004-III; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 142-146, ECHR 2010; Gatt v. Malta, no. 28221/08, §§ 21-25, ECHR 2010; Association Les témoins de Jéhovah v. France (dec.), no. 8916/05, 21 September 2010; Karapanagiotou and Others v. Greece, no. 1571/08, §§ 25-30, 28 October 2010; and Merot d.o.o. and Storitve Tir d.o.o. v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29426/08 and 29737/08, 10 December 2013).
• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 63543/09

  DURDAJ AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  29426/08 and 29737/08, § 38, 10 December 2013; and Peacock v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52335/12, § 40, 5 January 2016).
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  DRAGOJEVIC v. CROATIA

  29426/08 and 29737/08, §§ 35 and 36 10 December 2013).

 
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 44101/18

  PLAZZI c. SUISSE

  En conclusion, le requérant a donné au Tribunal fédéral l'occasion que l'article 35 de la Convention a pour finalité de ménager en principe à un État contractant: celle d'examiner, c'est-à-dire de prévenir ou redresser la violation au regard de la Convention qui est alléguée contre cet État (voir, a contrario, Azinas, précité, § 41, et Merot d'o.o. et Storitve TIR d'o.o. c. Croatie (déc.), nos 29426/98 et 29737/08, §§ 35-38, 10 décembre 2013).
• EGMR, 01.06.2023 - 24827/14

  FU QUAN, S.R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Celui-ci doit au contraire s'en être plaint effectivement (explicitement ou en substance) de façon à qu'il ne subsiste aucun doute sur le point de savoir s'il a bien soulevé au niveau interne le grief qu'il a présenté par la suite à la Cour (Farzaliyev, précité, § 55, et Merot d.o.o. et Storitve Tir d.o.o. c. Croatie (déc.), nos 29426/08 et 29737/08, 10 décembre 2013).
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 58045/11

  S.C. SERVICE BENZ COM S.R.L. c. ROUMANIE

  Dans ces affaires, elle a estimé que les recours n'étaient pas effectifs pour des raisons liées aux cas concrets d'espèce, comme, par exemple, la faillite ou la dissolution de la société commerciale responsable (Merot D.O.O. et Storitve Tir D.O.O. c. Croatie (déc.), nos 29426/08 et 29737/08, § 33, 10 décembre 2013, et Vasilevski, précité, § 60), le risque sérieux de faillite compte tenu de la sévérité des amendes infligées aux auteurs de fraudes (Bowler International Unit c. France, no 1946/06, § 44, 23 juillet 2009), le décès de l'auteur du délit ayant conduit à la confiscation (Vasilevski, précité, § 59) ou l'absence de pratique des tribunaux internes en la matière (Andonoski, précité, § 39).
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 50101/12

  BIKIC v. CROATIA

  29426/08 and 29737/08, §§ 35 and 36, 10 December 2013).
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 52335/12

  PEACOCK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  29426/98 and 29737/08, §§ 35-38, 10 December 2013).
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 29998/15

  HERNADI v. CROATIA

  29426/08 and 29737/08, § 36, 10 December 2013).