Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAULET v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TEST PUBLICATION - CASE OF PAULET v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  (englisch)

Besprechungen u.ä.

• verfassungsblog.de (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Arbeitslohn illegaler Einwanderer als "Proceeds of Crime": ein zauderhaftes Urteil aus Straßburg

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Paulet v. the United Kingdom

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 6219/08
• EGMR, 11.02.2015 - 6219/08

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 41087/98

  PHILLIPS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 6219/08

  It is not in dispute that the confiscation order in the present case amounted to an interference with the applicant's right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as protected by the first sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Moreover, it is clear from Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 51, ECHR 2001-VII, that confiscation orders fall within the scope of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which, inter alia, allows the Contracting States to control the use of property to secure the payment of penalties.

  I find myself unable to agree with the majority's conclusions (see paragraph 64) that the present case is analogous to previous case-law of this Court on the confiscation of the proceeds of crime (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, and Bongiorno and Others v. Italy, no. 4514/07, 5 January 2010).

  This country's confiscation regime has consistently been held to be a proportionate and legitimate response to crime and thus to occasion no infringement of [Article 1 of Protocol 1]: see for example Phillips v United Kingdom [no. 41087/98, ECHR 2001-VII] and R v Rezvi [2003] 1 AC 1099.

• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 6219/08

  The striking of a fair balance depends on many factors (AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 54, Series A no. 108).
• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  JOKELA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 6219/08

  Although the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 contains no explicit procedural requirements, the Court must consider whether the proceedings as a whole afforded the applicant a reasonable opportunity for putting his case to the competent authorities with a view to enabling them to establish a fair balance between the conflicting interests at stake (AGOSI, cited above, § 55, and Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 55, ECHR 2002-IV).

 
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 6219/08

  Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in substance guarantees the right of property (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 63, Series A no. 31).
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 6219/08

  However, the three rules are not "distinct" in the sense of being unconnected: the second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1986, § 106, Series A no. 102).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 6219/08

  Likewise, in Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 72, Series A no. 39 the applicant was found to have "derived from the Italian legislation pleas equivalent, in the Court's view, to an allegation of a breach of the right guaranteed by Article 5" and, in so doing, had "provided the national courts, in particular the Court of Appeal, with the opportunity... of putting right the violations alleged against them".
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 6219/08

  It comprises "three distinct rules": the first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of the peaceful enjoyment of property; the second rule, contained in the second sentence of the first paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and subjects it to certain conditions; the third rule, stated in the second paragraph, recognises that the Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest (see, inter alia, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 6219/08

  In Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 30, Series A no. 236 and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 38, ECHR 1999-I the Court found that where the applicants had relied on equivalent provisions of domestic law, they had raised their Convention complaints in substance before the domestic courts.
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 6219/08

  It normally requires also that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to those same courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among other authorities, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, Elçi and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, §§ 604 and 605, 13 November 2003, and Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 6219/08

  In fact, in arguing that a confiscation order would be oppressive if it was disproportionate pursuant to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant gave the domestic courts an opportunity to align, in substance, the criteria for the application of the domestic-law test with the test stated in this Court's case-law for compliance with the Convention (see, for example, Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 296-A).
• EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

  ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)
• EKMR, 30.06.1997 - 25091/94

  SAHiN v. TURKEY