Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RUMMI v. ESTONIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Public hearing) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) Article 6-1 - ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Rummi v. Estonia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RUMMI v. ESTONIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 63362/09
• EGMR, 13.04.2016 - 63362/09

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 20496/02

  SILICKIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 63362/09

  Therefore, the Government's objection must be dismissed (see, for example, Silickiene v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, §§ 45-46, 10 April 2012, and Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV).

  However, the Court notes that in Silickiene this question was dealt with in the context of examination of the merits of the case, the Lithuanian Government's similar plea of non-exhaustion having been dismissed, because the seizure ordered by the investigator was provisional (see Silickis and Silickiene v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 20496/02, 10 November 2009).

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 63362/09

  The second and third rules, which are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, must be construed in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see, among many authorities, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 44, ECHR 1999-V, and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 134, ECHR 2004-V).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 63362/09

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case; the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities; and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 63362/09

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  JOKELA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 63362/09

  In ascertaining whether this condition has been satisfied, a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable procedures (see Denisova and Moiseyeva, cited above, § 59; Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV; and AGOSI, cited above, § 55).
• EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 696/05

  DASSA FOUNDATION AND OTHERS v. LIECHTENSTEIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 63362/09

  Thus, a confiscation order in respect of criminally acquired property operates in the general interest as a deterrent to those considering engaging in criminal activities, and also guarantees that crime does not pay (see Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, § 58, 1 April 2010, with further references to Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 52, ECHR 2001-VII, and Dassa Foundation and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 696/05, 10 July 2007).
• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 63362/09

  The Court's constant approach has been that confiscation, even though it does involve deprivation of possessions, nevertheless constitutes control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Sun v. Russia, no. 31004/02, § 25, 5 February 2009; Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, 5 July 2001; C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, 26 June 2001; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A; and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 51, Series A no. 108).
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 63362/09

  The Court's constant approach has been that confiscation, even though it does involve deprivation of possessions, nevertheless constitutes control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Sun v. Russia, no. 31004/02, § 25, 5 February 2009; Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, 5 July 2001; C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, 26 June 2001; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A; and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 51, Series A no. 108).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 63362/09

  The Court considers that confiscation in criminal proceedings is in line with the general interest of the community, because the forfeiture of money or assets obtained through illegal activities or paid for with the proceeds of crime is a necessary and effective means of combating criminal activities (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 30, Series A no. 281-A).
• EGMR, 27.03.2019 - 16903/03

  DENISOVA ET MOISEYEVA CONTRE LA RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 63362/09

  Thus, a confiscation order in respect of criminally acquired property operates in the general interest as a deterrent to those considering engaging in criminal activities, and also guarantees that crime does not pay (see Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, § 58, 1 April 2010, with further references to Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 52, ECHR 2001-VII, and Dassa Foundation and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 696/05, 10 July 2007).
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

  YILDIRIM contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  KARAKO v. HUNGARY
• EKMR, 30.06.1997 - 25091/94

  SAHiN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97

  B. AND P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …