Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EAST WEST ALLIANCE LIMITED v. UKRAINE

  Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  East/West Alliance Limited v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.01.2014 - 19336/04
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 19336/04

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.01.2014 - 19336/04

  Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law; in particular, its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities of the respondent State (see, among other authorities, Aksoy v. Turkey, cited above, § 95, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.01.2014 - 19336/04

  The Court enjoys certain discretion in the exercise of the power conferred by Article 41, as is borne out by the adjective "just" and the phrase "if necessary" in its text (see Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 114, Series A no. 39).
• EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

  CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.01.2014 - 19336/04

  It must also have caused its managers feelings of helplessness and frustration (see and compare Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 221, ECHR 2012).

 
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97

  BOTTAZZI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.01.2014 - 19336/04

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 30, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.01.2014 - 19336/04

  The Court points out that the purpose of the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 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 Convention institutions (see, for example, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.01.2014 - 19336/04

  The requisite balance will not be found if the person concerned has had to bear an individual and excessive burden (see, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69 and 73, Series A no. 52).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.01.2014 - 19336/04

  The Court reiterates that the seizure of property for legal proceedings, which does not deprive the owner of his possessions, but only provisionally prevents him from using them and from disposing of them, 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; Adamczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 28551/04, 7 November 2006; Karamitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 53321/99, § 72, 10 January 2008; and Borzhonov v. Russia, no. 18274/04, § 51, 22 January 2009).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.01.2014 - 19336/04

  The second and third rules, which are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, must be construed in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see, among many authorities, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 44, ECHR 1999-V, and Vistins and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, § 93, 25 October 2012).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.01.2014 - 19336/04

  The requirement of lawfulness, within the meaning of the Convention, demands compliance with the relevant provisions of domestic law and compatibility with the rule of law, which includes freedom from arbitrariness (see Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, § 42, and Kushoglu v. Bulgaria, no. 48191/99, §§ 49-62, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.01.2014 - 19336/04

  In other words, there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see, for instance, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 50, Series A no. 98).

• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 7896/15

  OOO SK STROYKOMPLEKS ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Eu égard à la conclusion à laquelle elle est parvenue sur le terrain de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention (paragraphes 90, 91 et 94 ci-dessus), elle estime qu'il est inutile d'examiner la question de savoir si, en l'espèce, il y a eu violation des articles 6 et 13 de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis, Forminster Enterprises Limited, précité, §§ 58-59, où la Cour a décidé d'examiner le grief tiré de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention en tant que partie du grief tiré de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention s'agissant d'une saisie prolongée de parts sociales, ainsi que East West Alliance Limited c. Ukraine, no 19336/04, §§ 219-222, 23 janvier 2014, Ünsped Paket Servisi SaN.
• EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 50626/11

  UGRINOVA AND SAKAZOVA v. BULGARIA

  In addition, if one or more heads of damage cannot be calculated precisely or if the distinction between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage proves difficult, the Court may decide to make a global assessment ruling on an equitable basis (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000-IV, and East West Alliance Limited v. Ukraine, no. 19336/04, § 253, 23 January 2014).