Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZLINSAT, SPOL. S R.O. v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 13 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - reserved Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) - partially awarded and partially reserved ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 57785/00
• EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 57785/00
• EGMR, 11.12.2019 - 57785/00

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 57785/00

  Even assuming, however, that to be the case, this does not attract the application of Article 6 § 1 under its criminal limb in respect of the applicant company (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, p. 22, § 65 in fine).

  In ascertaining whether this condition has been satisfied, a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable procedures (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, p. 19, § 55; Hentrich, cited above, p. 21, § 49; and Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30985/96

  HASSAN ET TCHAOUCH c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 57785/00

  Consequently, the law must indicate the scope of any such discretion and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity, so as to give the affected individuals and entities adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see, mutatis mutandis, Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 84, ECHR 2000-XI, with further references).
• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  JOKELA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 57785/00

  In ascertaining whether this condition has been satisfied, a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable procedures (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, p. 19, § 55; Hentrich, cited above, p. 21, § 49; and Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV).

 
• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 24638/94

  CARBONARA ET VENTURA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 57785/00

  Moreover, the rule of law, one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society, is inherent in all the Articles of the Convention (see Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, no. 24638/94, § 63, ECHR 2000-VI; and Capital Bank AD, cited above, § 133).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 14570/89

  PROCOLA c. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 57785/00

  It could thus hardly be deemed as sufficiently impartial for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Procola v. Luxembourg, judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 326, p. 16, § 45).
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 57785/00

  It is, however, required under the Convention to determine whether that law lays down with reasonable clarity the essential elements of the authorities" powers (see Malone v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, p. 36, § 79).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 57785/00

  It thus presupposes that the rules of domestic law must be sufficiently precise and foreseeable (see Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, pp. 19-20, § 42; and Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 109, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 57785/00

  It does not therefore consider that the case involves a deprivation of property (see, mutatis mutandis, Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A, pp. 15-16, § 33).
• EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 52024/99

  ARCURI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 57785/00

  They were thus not comparable to a criminal sanction (see, mutatis mutandis, Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII, with further references).
• EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 35882/97

  POTOP c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 57785/00

  However, it did not eliminate the intervening impossibility to use and manage the hotel for more than two years (see, mutatis mutandis, Potop v. Romania, no. 35882/97, § 37, 25 November 2003).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

  FISCHER c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 30.11.1987 - 8950/80

  H. v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 23.10.1985 - 8848/80

  BENTHEM v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE
• EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

  ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04

  SHESTI MAI ENGINEERING OOD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  s r.o. v. Bulgaria, no. 57785/00, § 98, 15 June 2006; Druzstevní zálozna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 72034/01, § 89, 31 July 2008; and Forminster Enterprises Limited, cited above, § 69), and that the State must afford judicial procedures that offer the necessary procedural guarantees and enable the domestic courts to adjudicate effectively and fairly on any disputes between private persons (see Ukraine-Tyumen v. Ukraine, no. 22603/02, § 51, 22 November 2007).

  Lastly, the calculation of the loss suffered by the applicants inevitably involves a degree of speculation (see, mutatis mutandis, Zlínsat, spol. s r.o. v. Bulgaria (just satisfaction), no. 57785/00, § 43, 10 January 2008, with further references).

• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 41064/05

  HADZHIGEORGIEVI v. BULGARIA

  s r.o., v. Bulgaria, no. 57785/00, § 97, 15 June 2006).
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 26524/04

  DIMITAR KRASTEV v. BULGARIA

  s r.o. v. Bulgaria, no. 57785/00, § 72, 15 June 2006, concerning the determination of civil rights by a prosecutor; and contrast Dogmoch v. Germany (dec.), no. 26315/03, 18 September 2006, and Dassa Foundation and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 696/05, 10 July 2007, concerning the provisional freezing of assets with a view to their forfeiture).
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 18931/09

  ROMANAZZI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  En conséquence, elle doit définir l'étendue et les modalités d'exercice d'un tel pouvoir avec une netteté suffisante (les requérants citent, à cet égard, Zlinsat, Spol S r.o. c. Bulgarie, no 57785/00, § 98, 15 juin 2006).
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 52257/09

  RASHKOVI c. BULGARIE

  s r.o. c. Bulgarie, no 57785/00, 15 juin 2006), elle allègue que les voies de recours suggérées par le Gouvernement n'étaient pas efficaces pour remédier aux violations alléguées de l'article 3 de la Convention.