Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BORZHONOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+6, Art. 13+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 13+6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 13+6-1 Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13+P1-1 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 18274/04

  Although the availability of alternative solutions does not in itself render the interference with the applicant's right unjustified, it constitutes a relevant factor when determining whether the means chosen may be regarded as reasonable and suited to achieving the legitimate aim being pursued (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 51, Series A no. 98; and Wiesinger v. Austria, 30 October 1991, § 77, Series A no. 213).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 11796/85

  WIESINGER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 18274/04

  Although the availability of alternative solutions does not in itself render the interference with the applicant's right unjustified, it constitutes a relevant factor when determining whether the means chosen may be regarded as reasonable and suited to achieving the legitimate aim being pursued (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 51, Series A no. 98; and Wiesinger v. Austria, 30 October 1991, § 77, Series A no. 213).
• EGMR, 20.04.1999 - 27312/95

  KOKAVECZ v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 18274/04

  The Court also accepts that the interference was in the "general interest" of the community because the charge aimed at anticipating an eventual confiscation of property and securing civil claims of the injured party (see Kokavecz v. Hungary (dec.), no. 27312/95, 20 April 1999, and Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, § 26, ECHR 2006-...).

 
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 18274/04

  The Court reiterates that the seizure of property for legal proceedings normally relates to the control of the use of property, which falls within the ambit of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, among others, Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no. 281-A; Andrews v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 49584/99, 26 September 2002; Adamczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 28551/04, 7 November 2006; and Simonjan-Heikinheino v. Finland (dec.), no. 6321/03, 2 September 2008).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 18274/04

  The latter's purpose is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 18274/04

  The scope of the Contracting States" obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 16528/05

  HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 18274/04

  As to a remedy concerning a complaint about the length of proceedings, the decisive element in assessing its effectiveness is whether the applicant can raise this complaint before the domestic courts by claiming a specific redress; in other words, whether a remedy exists that could answer his complaints by providing direct and speedy redress, and not merely indirect protection of the rights guaranteed in Article 6 of the Convention (see Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, § 39, 10 July 2008).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 18274/04

  The Court has consistently interpreted Article 13 as requiring a remedy in domestic law in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, for example, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 54, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 18274/04

  It is for the applicant to choose the legal remedy that is most appropriate in the circumstances of the case (see, among other authorities, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 23, Series A no. 32, and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 80, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 18274/04

  One of the purposes of the right to trial within a reasonable period of time is to protect individuals from remaining too long in a state of uncertainty about their fate (see Stögmüller v. Austria, § 5, 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9).

• EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 4158/19

  IPEK c. TURQUIE

  En ce qui concerne les griefs relatifs au droit de propriété, la Cour constitutionnelle décida de les examiner à la lumière de la jurisprudence de la Cour relative aux saisies et confiscations (dont notamment Raimondo c. Italie, 22 février 1994, série A no 281-A, Andrews c. Royaume Uni (déc.), no 49584/99, 26 septembre 2002, Adamczyk c. Pologne (déc.) no 28551/04, 7 novembre 2006, JGK Statyba Ltd et Guselnikovas c. Lituanie, no 3330/12, 5 novembre 2013, Ali Esen c. Turquie, no 74522/0124 juillet 2007, Rafig Aliyev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 45875/06, 6 décembre 2011, Viktor Konovalov c. Russie, no 43626/02, 24 mai 2007, Dzinic c. Croatie, no 38359/13, 17 mai 2016, Borjonov c. Russie, no 18274/04, 22 janvier 2009, East West Alliance Limited c. Ukraine, no 19336/04, 23 janvier 2014, AGOSI c. Royaume-Uni, 24 octobre 1986, série A no 108, Sulejmani c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine, no 74681/11, 28 avril 2016, Jucys c. Lituanie, no 5457/03, 8 janvier 2008, Compagnie de navigation de la République islamique d'Iran c. Turquie, no 40998/98, CEDH 2007-V).

  Compte tenu de sa nature, l'ingérence doit être examinée sous l'angle du droit pour l'État de réglementer l'usage des biens conformément à l'intérêt général, au sens du second alinéa de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (voir, parmi d'autres, Smirnov c. Russie, no 71362/01, § 54, CEDH 2007-VII, Borjonov c. Russie, no 18274/04, § 57, 22 janvier 2009).

• EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 2412/19

  SHYLINA v. UKRAINE

  However, whereas the availability of alternative solutions constitutes a relevant factor when determining whether the means chosen may be regarded as reasonable and suited to achieving the legitimate aim being pursued, it does not in itself render the interference with the right unjustified (see, mutatis mutandis, Borzhonov v. Russia, no. 18274/04, § 61, 22 January 2009).
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 25720/05

  Tendam ./. Spanien

  La Cour rappelle que la rétention des biens saisis par les autorités judiciaires dans le cadre d'une procédure pénale doit être examinée sous l'angle du droit pour l'État de réglementer l'usage des biens conformément à l'intérêt général, au sens du second paragraphe de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (Smirnov c. Russie, no 71362/01, § 54, CEDH 2007-VII, Adamczyk c. Pologne (déc.), no 28551/04, 7 novembre 2006, et Borjonov c. Russie, no 18274/04, § 57, 22 janvier 2009).

 
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 19620/05

  UZAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  En deuxième lieu, en ce qui concerne la nature de l'ingérence, la Cour rappelle que la rétention des biens saisis par les autorités judiciaires dans le cadre d'une procédure pénale doit être examinée sous l'angle du droit pour l'État de réglementer l'usage des biens conformément à l'intérêt général, au sens du second alinéa de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (Smirnov c. Russie, no 71362/01, § 54, CEDH 2007-VII, Borjonov c. Russie, no 18274/04, § 57, 22 janvier 2009, et Adamczyk c. Pologne (déc.), no 28551/04, 7 novembre 2006).
• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 22716/12

  ANDRZEJ RUCI?ƒSKI v. POLAND

  To that end, the Court has held on numerous occasions that any seizure entails damage (see, for example, Borzhonov v. Russia, no. 18274/04, § 61, 22 January 2009).
• EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 24827/14

  FU QUAN, S.R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The application of provisional measures in the context of judicial proceedings, aimed at anticipating a possible confiscation of property, has already been held to be in the "general interest" of the community (see, for example, Borzhonov v. Russia, no. 18274/04, § 58, 22 January 2009, and the cases cited therein; East West Alliance Limited v. Ukraine, no. 19336/04, § 187, 23 January 2014; and D?¾inic, cited above, § 65).
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 46564/15

  KORPORATIVNA TARGOVSKA BANKA AD v. BULGARIA

  There is, moreover, a difference in the nature of the interests protected by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in such situations: the former affords an explicit procedural safeguard (to have any dispute relating to one's civil rights or obligations determined by a court), whereas the procedural requirements inherent in the latter are ancillary to the purpose of ensuring respect for the right peacefully to enjoy one's possessions (see, mutatis mutandis, Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 65, ECHR 1999-II; Karamitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 53321/99, § 75, 10 January 2008; and Borzhonov v. Russia, no. 18274/04, § 50, 22 January 2009).
• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 54491/14

  CALIN v. ROMANIA

  Therefore, the Court accepts that the interference was in the "general interest" of the community because it was aimed at securing the civil claims of the injured party (see Borzhonov v. Russia, no. 18274/04, § 58, 22 January 2009).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 29214/09

  IPEK SOCIÉTÉ À RESPONSABILITÉ LIMITÉE c. TURQUIE

  La Cour rappelle que la rétention des biens saisis par les autorités judiciaires dans le cadre d'une procédure pénale doit être examinée sous l'angle du droit pour l'État de réglementer l'usage des biens conformément à l'intérêt général, au sens du second alinéa de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (Smirnov c. Russie, no 71362/01, § 54, CEDH 2007-VII, Borjonov c. Russie, no 18274/04, § 57, 22 janvier 2009, Adamczyk c. Pologne (déc.), no 28551/04, 7 novembre 2006, et Uzan et autres c. Turquie, nos 19620/05 et 3 autres, § 194, 5 mars 2019).
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 60975/08

  SIEMASZKO ET OLSZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  La Cour souligne que, même si l'existence de solutions de rechange ne rend pas en soi injustifiée la législation litigieuse, elle représente un facteur, parmi d'autres, aidant à déterminer si les moyens employés peuvent passer pour raisonnables et aptes à la réalisation du but légitime poursuivi, eu égard au « juste équilibre'à préserver (James et autres c. Royaume-Uni, 21 février 1986, § 51, série A no 98, et Borjonov c. Russie, no 18274/04, § 61, 22 janvier 2009).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 6800/09

  AKPAZ SOCIÉTÉ À RESPONSABILITÉ LIMITÉE c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 7896/15

  OOO SK STROYKOMPLEKS ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 07.11.2019 - 32644/09

  APOSTOLOVI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 69729/12

  FILKIN c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 38783/07

  LACHIKHINA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 3269/18

  SCI LE CHÂTEAU DU FRANCPORT c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 07.04.2020 - 5738/18

  OOO AVRORA MALOETAZHNOE STROITELSTVO c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 78494/14

  NIKOLAYENKO ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 5359/04

  GEORGI ATANASOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 23.03.2023 - 33085/12

  GAYIBOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR - 48168/17 (anhängig)

  SHAPIRO ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE