Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CREDIT EUROPE LEASING IFN S.A. v. ROMANIA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SC CREDIT EUROPE LEASING IFN SA v. ROMANIA

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 38072/11
• EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 38072/11

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 38072/11

  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, among many authorities, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 48, Series A no. 108, and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 185, ECHR 2012).

  The question is therefore whether, in the circumstances of the case, the measure was proportionate to the aim pursued; in other words, whether a fair balance was struck between the requirements of the general interest and the protection of the applicant company's right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, in particular by providing procedures affording the applicant company a reasonable opportunity of putting its case to the responsible authorities (see AGOSI, cited above, § 55, Series A no. 108, and Arcuri v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII).

• EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90

  WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 38072/11

  However, other factors may also be taken into account as relevant in this connection, namely the nature and purpose of the measure in question; its characterisation under national law; the procedures involved in the making and implementation of the measure; and its severity (see G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others, cited above, §§ 210 and 211, and Welch v. the United Kingdom, 9 February 1995, §§ 27 and 28, Series A no. 307-A).
• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 17910/15

  AEI INVESTMENT INDUSTRY S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 38072/11

  The Court further reiterates its well-established case-law to the effect that in cases involving the seizure and confiscation of applicants" property in the framework of criminal proceedings against third parties, such proceedings do not concern a "criminal charge" against the applicants (see Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV; Bowler International Unit v. France, no. 1946/06, § 67, 23 July 2009; and AEI Investment Industry S.R.L. and Others v. Romania [Committee] (dec.), no. 17910/15 and six other applications, § 38, 11 February 2020).

 
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

  YILDIRIM contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 38072/11

  The Court further reiterates its well-established case-law to the effect that in cases involving the seizure and confiscation of applicants" property in the framework of criminal proceedings against third parties, such proceedings do not concern a "criminal charge" against the applicants (see Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV; Bowler International Unit v. France, no. 1946/06, § 67, 23 July 2009; and AEI Investment Industry S.R.L. and Others v. Romania [Committee] (dec.), no. 17910/15 and six other applications, § 38, 11 February 2020).
• EGMR, 04.09.2001 - 52439/99

  RIELA ET AUTRES contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 38072/11

  In conclusion, the measure was pursuing a general interest the importance of which has already been stressed in several judgments of the Court (see, for example, Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 30, Series A no. 281-A; Riela v. Italy, no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Grifhorst v. France, no. 28336/02, §§ 92-93, 26 February 2009; and Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, § 123, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 38072/11

  Nevertheless, on this point the Court considers, as held on numerous occasions, that it is not its task to take the place of the domestic courts and it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see among many other authorities, Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, § 52, Series A no. 222; and S.C. Antares Transport S.A. and S.C. Transroby S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 27227/08, § 42, 15 December 2015).
• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 12323/11

  MICHAUD v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 38072/11

  In conclusion, the measure was pursuing a general interest the importance of which has already been stressed in several judgments of the Court (see, for example, Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 30, Series A no. 281-A; Riela v. Italy, no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Grifhorst v. France, no. 28336/02, §§ 92-93, 26 February 2009; and Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, § 123, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 38072/11

  In conclusion, the measure was pursuing a general interest the importance of which has already been stressed in several judgments of the Court (see, for example, Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 30, Series A no. 281-A; Riela v. Italy, no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Grifhorst v. France, no. 28336/02, §§ 92-93, 26 February 2009; and Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, § 123, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 52024/99

  ARCURI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 38072/11

  The question is therefore whether, in the circumstances of the case, the measure was proportionate to the aim pursued; in other words, whether a fair balance was struck between the requirements of the general interest and the protection of the applicant company's right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, in particular by providing procedures affording the applicant company a reasonable opportunity of putting its case to the responsible authorities (see AGOSI, cited above, § 55, Series A no. 108, and Arcuri v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII).

• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 15553/15

  S.C. ZORINA INTERNATIONAL S.R.L. v. ROMANIA

  The fair balance also requires procedural guarantees to establish an applicant's liability, whereby he or she is afforded an adequate opportunity to put his or her case to the responsible authorities in order to plead, as the case may be, illegality or arbitrary and unreasonable conduct (see Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV, and Konstantin Stefanov, cited above, § 55; see also, mutatis mutandis, Credit Europe Leasing Ifn S.A. v. Romania, no. 38072/11, § 76, 21 July 2020).