Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEKIC c. SLOVÉNIE

  Exception préliminaire rejetée (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité;(Art. 35-1) Délai de six mois;Exception préliminaire rejetée (Art. 34) Requêtes individuelles;(Art. 34) Victime;Non-violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Protection de la propriété (Article ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEKIC v. SLOVENIA

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEKIC v. SLOVENIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Pressemitteilung)

  Arrêt de Grande Chambre Lekic c. Slovénie - obliger un administrateur à payer les dettes de sa société était justifié

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Pressemitteilung)

  Grand Chamber judgment Lekic v. Slovenia - obliging a director to pay his company"s debts was justified

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 36480/07
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 36480/07

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 36480/07

  A general measure has also been found to be a more feasible means of achieving the legitimate aim than a provision allowing a case-by-case examination, when the latter would give rise to a risk of significant uncertainty, of litigation, expense and delay as well as of discrimination and arbitrariness (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 108, ECHR 2013, with further references).

  The application of the general measure to the facts of the case remains, however, illustrative of its impact in practice and is thus material to its proportionality (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 108, ECHR 2013, and Correia de Matos v. Portugal [GC], no. 56402/12, § 129, 4 April 2018).

• EuGH, 21.10.2010 - C-81/09

  Idryma Typou - Niederlassungsfreiheit - Freier Kapitalverkehr - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 36480/07

  Referring to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 21 October 2010 in Idryma Typou AE v. Ypourgos Typou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis (C-81/09, EU:C:2010:622), he argued that the impugned measure was likewise contrary to the fundamental principles of company law in the European Union.

  Referring to the judgment of the CJEU of 21 October 2010 in Idryma Typou AE v. Ypourgos Typou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis (C-81/09, EU:C:2010:622), the applicant argued that the impugned measure was contrary to the fundamental principles of company law in the European Union.

• EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 56402/12

  CORREIA DE MATOS c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 36480/07

  It falls to the Court to examine carefully the arguments taken into consideration during the legislative process and leading to the choices that have been made by the legislature and to determine whether a fair balance has been struck between the competing interests of the State or the public generally and those directly affected by the legislative choices (compare Correia de Matos v. Portugal [GC], no. 56402/12, § 129, 4 April 2018).

  The application of the general measure to the facts of the case remains, however, illustrative of its impact in practice and is thus material to its proportionality (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 108, ECHR 2013, and Correia de Matos v. Portugal [GC], no. 56402/12, § 129, 4 April 2018).

 
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 36480/07

  Instead, it must determine whether the manner in which it was applied to, or affected, the applicant gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 101, ECHR 2014; Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, § 136, ECHR 2015; and Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 164, ECHR 2015, with further references).
• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  JOKELA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 36480/07

  In ascertaining whether that condition has been satisfied, a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable judicial and administrative procedures (see Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV; Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 134, ECHR 2005-XII; and Stolyarova v. Russia, no. 15711/13, § 43, 29 January 2015).
• EGMR, 07.10.1988 - 10519/83

  SALABIAKU c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 36480/07

  It does, however, require the Contracting States to remain within certain limits in this respect as regards criminal law (see Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, § 28, Series A no. 141-A).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 36480/07

  This power of appreciation is not, however, unlimited but goes hand in hand with a European supervision by the Court, whose task it is to give a final ruling on whether the impugned interference in the instant case is reconcilable with the applicant's rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 58, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 15711/13

  STOLYAROVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 36480/07

  In ascertaining whether that condition has been satisfied, a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable judicial and administrative procedures (see Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV; Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 134, ECHR 2005-XII; and Stolyarova v. Russia, no. 15711/13, § 43, 29 January 2015).
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 14717/04

  BERGER-KRALL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 36480/07

  The present case should, in his opinion, be distinguished from both Berger-Krall and Others v. Slovenia (no. 14717/04, 12 June 2014), which concerned occupancy rights in respect of socially-owned flats established in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and Jahn and Others v. Germany ([GC], nos. 46720/99 and 2 others, ECHR 2005-VI), which dealt with the unique context of German reunification.
• EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

  EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 36480/07

  Instead, it must determine whether the manner in which it was applied to, or affected, the applicant gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 101, ECHR 2014; Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, § 136, ECHR 2015; and Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 164, ECHR 2015, with further references).
• EGMR, 30.08.2007 - 44302/02

  J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LTD ET J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LAND LTD c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12129/86

  HENNINGS v. GERMANY

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.10.2021 - C-83/20

  BPC Lux 2 u.a.

  Vgl. auch EGMR, 11. Dezember 2018, Lekic/Slowenien, CE:ECHR:2018:1211JUD003648007, § 71 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung.