Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ERDURAN AND EM EXPORT DIS TIC. A.S. v. TURKEY

  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (24)

• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 25707/05

  Under those circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant company implicitly but unequivocally waived an important guarantee offered to it by the domestic legal system (see, mutatis mutandis, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 202, ECHR 2007-IV), which would have allowed it to perform an ex post facto check of the content of the bags in order to reveal whether the authorities had seized any documents that were irrelevant for the tax audit, as it alleged (see Cacuci and S.C. Virra & Cont Pad S.R.L., cited above, § 99).
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 25707/05

  Nevertheless, the Court notes that the documents the applicant company requested were not among those relied on in the tax-assessment report and were not in the case file before the court, causing no hindrance to its ability to have a complete picture of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 52, Series A no. 263, and Bendenoun v. France, 24 February 1994, § 52, Series A no. 284).
• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86

  BENDENOUN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 25707/05

  Nevertheless, the Court notes that the documents the applicant company requested were not among those relied on in the tax-assessment report and were not in the case file before the court, causing no hindrance to its ability to have a complete picture of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 52, Series A no. 263, and Bendenoun v. France, 24 February 1994, § 52, Series A no. 284).

 
• EGMR, 16.09.2003 - 60243/00

  BALAZ v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 25707/05

  The margin of appreciation afforded to the national authorities is therefore a wide one (see Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 57, ECHR 2002-IV; Balaz v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 60243/00, 16 September 2003; and Orion-Breclav, S.R.O. v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 43783/98, 13 January 2004).
• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  JOKELA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 25707/05

  The margin of appreciation afforded to the national authorities is therefore a wide one (see Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 57, ECHR 2002-IV; Balaz v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 60243/00, 16 September 2003; and Orion-Breclav, S.R.O. v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 43783/98, 13 January 2004).
• EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01

  JUSSILA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 25707/05

  Nevertheless, reiterating that incompatibility ratione materiae is a matter which goes to the Court's jurisdiction rather than a question of admissibility in the narrow sense of that term (see, mutatis mutandis, Blecic; Béláné Nagy; and Özmurat In??aat Elektrik Nakliyat Temizlik San. ve Tic. Ltd. Sti., all cited above), it examines the matter of its own motion and finds that in the present case, which concerns taxation proceedings, Article 6 applies under its criminal head, in line with its Jussila v. Finland judgment ([GC], no. 73053/01, ECHR 2006-XIV).
• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 41604/98

  Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und der Wohnung (Einsatz von Durchsuchungen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 25707/05

  The criteria the Court has taken into consideration in determining this latter issue are, inter alia: the severity of the offence in connection with which the search and seizure were effected; the manner and circumstances in which the order was issued, in particular whether any further evidence was available at that time; the content and scope of the order, having particular regard to the nature of the premises searched and the safeguards implemented in order to confine the impact of the measure to reasonable bounds; and the extent of possible repercussions on the reputation of the person affected by the search (see, among many others, Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 45, ECHR 2005-IV; Sérvulo & Associados - Sociedade de Advogados, RL and Others v. Portugal, no. 27013/10, § 100, 3 September 2015; and K.S. and M.S v. Germany, no. 33696/11, § 44, 6 October 2016).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 25707/05

  A law is "foreseeable" if it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the individual - if need be with appropriate advice - to regulate his conduct (see, among other authorities, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, ECHR 2008, and Bernh Larsen Holding AS and Others, cited above, § 123).
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 25707/05

  It finds, however, that the question concerns incompatibility ratione personae of the application which goes to the Court's jurisdiction and which it is not prevented from examining of its own motion (see, mutatis mutandis, Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III; Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, § 71, ECHR 2016; and Özmurat In??aat Elektrik Nakliyat Temizlik San. ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. Turkey, no. 48657/06, § 22, 28 November 2017).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 35178/97

  ANKARCRONA c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 25707/05

  Furthermore, while in certain circumstances the sole owner of a company can claim to be a "victim" within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention where the impugned measures were taken in respect of his or her company (see Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, ECHR 2000-VI, and Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, § 40, 11 October 2007), when that is not the case the disregarding of a company's legal personality can be justified only in exceptional circumstances, in particular where it is clearly established that it is impossible for the company to apply to the Court through the organs set up under its articles of incorporation or - in the event of liquidation - through its liquidators (see Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, § 66, Series A no. 330-A; CDI Holding Aktiengesellschaft and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 37398/97, 18 October 2001; Amat-G Ltd and Mebaghishvili v. Georgia, no. 2507/03, § 33, ECHR 2005-VIII; and Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia, no. 32283/04, § 66, 17 June 2008).
• EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 37398/97

  CDI HOLDING AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 11471/85

  CRÉMIEUX v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

  FUNKE v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  P.G. AND J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

  STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 2507/03

  AMAT-G LTD AND MEBAGISHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 30877/02

  NOSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 28867/03

  KEEGAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 32283/04

  MELTEX LTD AND MOVSESYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04
• EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 33696/11

  Steuerhinterziehung: Steuer-CDs dürfen für Strafverfolgung genutzt werden
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 35285/08

  IRFAN GÜZEL c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 18.05.2017 - 40927/05

  BOZE v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 48657/06

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