Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 17483/10 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2020,14304) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MARKUS v. LATVIA
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
MARKUS v. LATVIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (8) Neu Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 52024/99
ARCURI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 17483/10
Accordingly, the present case should be distinguished from cases in which the confiscation measure extended to the proceeds of a criminal offence (productum sceleris) (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, ECHR 2001-VII; Silickiene v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, 10 April 2012; and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, 12 May 2015), property that was presumed to be of unlawful origin (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A; Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; and Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII), property that was the object of the offence (objectum sceleris) (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108; Sun v. Russia, no. 31004/02, 5 February 2009; and Ismayilov, cited above), or property that had served, or had been intended to serve, for the commission of the crime (instrumentum sceleris) (see Andonoski, cited above; B.K.M. Lojistik Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Slovenia, no. 42079/12, 17 January 2017; and S.C. Service Benz Com S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 58045/11, 4 July 2017; see also Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, ECHR 2002-VI). - EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87
RAIMONDO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 17483/10
Accordingly, the present case should be distinguished from cases in which the confiscation measure extended to the proceeds of a criminal offence (productum sceleris) (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, ECHR 2001-VII; Silickiene v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, 10 April 2012; and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, 12 May 2015), property that was presumed to be of unlawful origin (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A; Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; and Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII), property that was the object of the offence (objectum sceleris) (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108; Sun v. Russia, no. 31004/02, 5 February 2009; and Ismayilov, cited above), or property that had served, or had been intended to serve, for the commission of the crime (instrumentum sceleris) (see Andonoski, cited above; B.K.M. Lojistik Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Slovenia, no. 42079/12, 17 January 2017; and S.C. Service Benz Com S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 58045/11, 4 July 2017; see also Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, ECHR 2002-VI). - EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80
AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 17483/10
Accordingly, the present case should be distinguished from cases in which the confiscation measure extended to the proceeds of a criminal offence (productum sceleris) (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, ECHR 2001-VII; Silickiene v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, 10 April 2012; and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, 12 May 2015), property that was presumed to be of unlawful origin (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A; Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; and Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII), property that was the object of the offence (objectum sceleris) (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108; Sun v. Russia, no. 31004/02, 5 February 2009; and Ismayilov, cited above), or property that had served, or had been intended to serve, for the commission of the crime (instrumentum sceleris) (see Andonoski, cited above; B.K.M. Lojistik Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Slovenia, no. 42079/12, 17 January 2017; and S.C. Service Benz Com S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 58045/11, 4 July 2017; see also Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, ECHR 2002-VI).
- EGMR, 04.09.2001 - 52439/99
RIELA ET AUTRES contre l'ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 17483/10
Accordingly, the present case should be distinguished from cases in which the confiscation measure extended to the proceeds of a criminal offence (productum sceleris) (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, ECHR 2001-VII; Silickiene v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, 10 April 2012; and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, 12 May 2015), property that was presumed to be of unlawful origin (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A; Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; and Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII), property that was the object of the offence (objectum sceleris) (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108; Sun v. Russia, no. 31004/02, 5 February 2009; and Ismayilov, cited above), or property that had served, or had been intended to serve, for the commission of the crime (instrumentum sceleris) (see Andonoski, cited above; B.K.M. Lojistik Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Slovenia, no. 42079/12, 17 January 2017; and S.C. Service Benz Com S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 58045/11, 4 July 2017; see also Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, ECHR 2002-VI). - EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79
BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 17483/10
The requisite balance will not be found if the person or persons concerned have had to bear an individual and excessive burden (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 50, Series A no. 98; Waldemar Nowakowski v. Poland, no. 55167/11, § 47, 24 July 2012; and Andonoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 16225/08, § 31, 17 September 2015). - EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05
GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 17483/10
Accordingly, the present case should be distinguished from cases in which the confiscation measure extended to the proceeds of a criminal offence (productum sceleris) (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, ECHR 2001-VII; Silickiene v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, 10 April 2012; and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, 12 May 2015), property that was presumed to be of unlawful origin (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A; Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; and Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII), property that was the object of the offence (objectum sceleris) (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108; Sun v. Russia, no. 31004/02, 5 February 2009; and Ismayilov, cited above), or property that had served, or had been intended to serve, for the commission of the crime (instrumentum sceleris) (see Andonoski, cited above; B.K.M. Lojistik Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Slovenia, no. 42079/12, 17 January 2017; and S.C. Service Benz Com S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 58045/11, 4 July 2017; see also Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, ECHR 2002-VI). - EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 20496/02
SILICKIENE v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 17483/10
Accordingly, the present case should be distinguished from cases in which the confiscation measure extended to the proceeds of a criminal offence (productum sceleris) (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, ECHR 2001-VII; Silickiene v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, 10 April 2012; and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, 12 May 2015), property that was presumed to be of unlawful origin (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A; Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; and Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII), property that was the object of the offence (objectum sceleris) (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108; Sun v. Russia, no. 31004/02, 5 February 2009; and Ismayilov, cited above), or property that had served, or had been intended to serve, for the commission of the crime (instrumentum sceleris) (see Andonoski, cited above; B.K.M. Lojistik Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Slovenia, no. 42079/12, 17 January 2017; and S.C. Service Benz Com S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 58045/11, 4 July 2017; see also Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, ECHR 2002-VI). - EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 58045/11
S.C. SERVICE BENZ COM S.R.L. c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 17483/10
Accordingly, the present case should be distinguished from cases in which the confiscation measure extended to the proceeds of a criminal offence (productum sceleris) (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, ECHR 2001-VII; Silickiene v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, 10 April 2012; and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, 12 May 2015), property that was presumed to be of unlawful origin (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A; Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; and Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII), property that was the object of the offence (objectum sceleris) (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108; Sun v. Russia, no. 31004/02, 5 February 2009; and Ismayilov, cited above), or property that had served, or had been intended to serve, for the commission of the crime (instrumentum sceleris) (see Andonoski, cited above; B.K.M. Lojistik Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Slovenia, no. 42079/12, 17 January 2017; and S.C. Service Benz Com S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 58045/11, 4 July 2017; see also Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, ECHR 2002-VI).
- EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 14139/21
NARBUTAS v. LITHUANIA
These circumstances lead the Court to have certain doubts as to whether the domestic law provides adequate protection against arbitrariness (see, mutatis mutandis, Markus v. Latvia, no. 17483/10, § 73, 11 June 2020, and Imeri v. Croatia, no. 77668/14, § 74, 24 June 2021). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.09.2020 - C-218/19
Onofrei
36 Vgl. EGMR, 11. Juni 2020, Markus/Lettland, Beschwerde Nr. 17483/10, (CE:ECHR:2020:0611JUD001748310, § 66 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung [im Zusammenhang mit einer strafrechtlichen Sanktion und der Beschränkung des Eigentumsrechts]). - EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 6865/19
FEILAZOO v. MALTA
However, the Court reiterates that under Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, any plea of inadmissibility must have been raised by the respondent Contracting Party - in so far as the nature of the objection and the circumstances so allowed - in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application (see N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 44, ECHR 2002-X; Markus v. Latvia, no. 17483/10, § 50, 11 June 2020 and Skudayeva v. Russia, no. 24014/07, § 27, 5 March 2019) and failure to do so will lead the Court to find that the Government are estopped from raising the objection (ibid.).
- EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 57020/18
REYES JIMENEZ c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 25.11.2021 - 29385/11
EKA MIKELADZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
As to the Government's letter of 26 October 2021, the Court reiterates that under Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, any plea of inadmissibility must have been raised by the respondent Contracting Party - in so far as the nature of the objection and the circumstances so allowed - in its written or oral observation on the admissibility of the application (see N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 44, ECHR 2002-X; Markus v. Latvia, no. 17483/10, § 50, 11 June 2020, and Skudayeva v. Russia, no. 24014/07, § 27, 5 March 2019) and failure to do so will lead the Court to find that the Government are estopped from raising the objection (ibid.). - EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 29962/18
MALYGINA c. RUSSIE
Au demeurant, le transfert litigieux ne peut être assimilé ni à une confiscation d'armes ou de produits d'une activité criminelle au sens de l'article 104.1 du code pénal (OOO Avrora Maloetazhnoe Stroitelstvo c. Russie, no 5738/18, §§ 40-41, 7 avril 2020 ; à comparer avec les affaires citées dans l'arrêt Markus c. Lettonie (no 17483/10, § 69, 11 juin 2020)), ni à une saisie-vente des biens au profit d'une victime de l'infraction (Bokova, précité, §§ 50-51). - EGMR, 17.06.2021 - 14615/19
MATTEI AND OTHERS v. MALTA
Under Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, any plea of inadmissibility must have been raised by the respondent Contracting Party - in so far as the nature of the objection and the circumstances so allowed - in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application (see N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 44, ECHR 2002-X; Markus v. Latvia, no. 17483/10, § 50, 11 June 2020; and Skudayeva v. Russia, no. 24014/07, § 27, 5 March 2019) and failure to do so will lead the Court to find that the Government are estopped from raising the objection (ibid.). - EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 24788/17
CANÈ AND OTHERS v. MALTA
Under Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, any plea of inadmissibility must have been raised by the respondent Contracting Party - in so far as the nature of the objection and the circumstances so allowed - in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application (see N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 44, ECHR 2002-X; Markus v. Latvia, no. 17483/10, § 50, 11 June 2020; Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 52, ECHR 2016 (extracts); and Skudayeva v. Russia, no. 24014/07, § 27, 5 March 2019) and failure to do so will lead the Court to find that the Government are estopped from raising the objection (ibid.).