Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EM INZHENERING EOOD v. BULGARIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  EM INZHENERING EOOD v. BULGARIA and 1 other application

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 11.01.2001 - 43862/98

  INOCÊNCIO contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 66319/11

  However, the fact that the provisions of criminal law applied on a subsidiary basis alone is not decisive (see also Inocêncio v. Portugal (dec.), no. 43862/98, ECHR 2001-I, and Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 18640/10

  GRANDE STEVENS AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 66319/11

  18640/10 and 4 others, §§ 25, 30 and 97-98, 4 March 2014, in which the applicant companies risked incurring fines of up to EUR 5, 000,000 but where the penalties actually imposed varied between EUR 600, 000 and EUR 1, 000,000).
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 70074/01

  VALICO S.R.L. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 66319/11

  In this connection the Court considers that the present case should be distinguished from cases in which far higher fines were imposed on companies, and were found by the Court to amount to a "criminal penalty" (see and compare Özmurat Insaat Elektrik Nakliyat Temizlik San. ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. Turkey, no. 48657/06, §§ 7 and 25, 28 November 2017, where the fine actually imposed on the applicant company amounted to EUR 82, 000; Valico S.r.l. v. Italy (dec.), no. 70074/01, ECHR 2006-III, where the fine actually imposed was approximately EUR 1, 385,260; and Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, nos.

 
• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 66319/11

  They maintained that in line with the Engel criteria (citing Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 82, Series A no. 22), the offences for which the applicant company had been punished were not criminal, nor could they fall within the "decriminalisation" process of certain offences, as had been the case in Öztürk v. Germany (21 February 1984, § 51, Series A no. 73).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84

  TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 66319/11

  In this regard, it has accepted that disciplinary proceedings in which the right to continue to practise a profession is at stake (see, for example, König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, §§ 87-95, Series A no. 27), or proceedings concerning the withdrawal of a company's licence to carry on a commercial activity (see Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, § 43, Series A no. 159), may give rise to a dispute over "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 48657/06

  ÖZMURAT INSAAT ELEKTRIK NAKLIYAT TEMIZLIK SAN. VE TIC. LTD. STI. v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 66319/11

  In this connection the Court considers that the present case should be distinguished from cases in which far higher fines were imposed on companies, and were found by the Court to amount to a "criminal penalty" (see and compare Özmurat Insaat Elektrik Nakliyat Temizlik San. ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. Turkey, no. 48657/06, §§ 7 and 25, 28 November 2017, where the fine actually imposed on the applicant company amounted to EUR 82, 000; Valico S.r.l. v. Italy (dec.), no. 70074/01, ECHR 2006-III, where the fine actually imposed was approximately EUR 1, 385,260; and Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, nos.
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 16137/04

  KURDOV ET IVANOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 66319/11

  The Court refers to its established case-law to the effect that in ascertaining whether there was a "criminal charge", regard must be had to three criteria commonly known as the "Engel criteria" - the legal classification of the offence under national law, the very nature of the offence, and the nature and degree of severity of the penalty that the person concerned risks incurring (see Engel and Others, cited above, § 82; Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, §§ 30-31, ECHR 2006-XIV; and Kurdov and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 16137/04, § 37, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 44759/98

  Verletzung des Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren durch überlange Verfahrensdauer; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 66319/11

  Moreover, the mere fact that the imposed sanctions had pecuniary repercussions is not in itself sufficient to attract the applicability of Article 6 § 1 under its civil head (see Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, § 25, ECHR 2001-VII, and the case-law cited therein).
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 66319/11

  In this regard, it has accepted that disciplinary proceedings in which the right to continue to practise a profession is at stake (see, for example, König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, §§ 87-95, Series A no. 27), or proceedings concerning the withdrawal of a company's licence to carry on a commercial activity (see Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, § 43, Series A no. 159), may give rise to a dispute over "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 08.04.2003 - 15814/02

  PORTER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 66319/11

  What is more, the applicant company was fined for breach of the construction safety rules and the applicable building regulations which related to the regulatory powers of the State and thus could be regarded as pertaining to the sphere of public law (see, mutatis mutandis, Porter v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15814/02, 8 April 2003).