Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 11.07.2019 - 77508/11 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,19429) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SADOCHA v. UKRAINE
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)
SADOCHA v. UKRAINE
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 11.07.2019 - 77508/11
- EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 77508/11
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08
CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2019 - 77508/11
Having regard to its findings under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see paragraph 37 above), the Court considers that the main issue at the heart of the applicant's complaint, specifically the lawfulness of the confiscation of EUR 31, 000 following the above-mentioned administrative proceedings, has been addressed by the Court and that it is not necessary to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the allegation of a breach of Article 6 of the Convention mentioned in the paragraph above (see, mutatis mutandis, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references, and Mocanu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 8141/07, § 37, 26 June 2018). - EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 8141/07
MOCANU ET AUTRES c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2019 - 77508/11
Having regard to its findings under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see paragraph 37 above), the Court considers that the main issue at the heart of the applicant's complaint, specifically the lawfulness of the confiscation of EUR 31, 000 following the above-mentioned administrative proceedings, has been addressed by the Court and that it is not necessary to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the allegation of a breach of Article 6 of the Convention mentioned in the paragraph above (see, mutatis mutandis, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references, and Mocanu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 8141/07, § 37, 26 June 2018).