Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FRIZEN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of P1-1 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 58254/00
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 58254/00
• EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 58254/00

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 41087/98

  PHILLIPS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 58254/00

  As regards the proceeds of the criminal offence (productum sceleris), the Court recalls that it has dealt with a case where the confiscation order followed on from the applicant's prosecution, trial and ultimate conviction (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, §§ 9-18, ECHR 2001-VII) and with cases in which a confiscation measure was imposed independently of a criminal charge in respect of the applicant's assets that were deemed to have been unlawfully acquired (see Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, 5 July 2001; and Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, § 29) or intended for use in illegal activities (see Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002).
• EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 52024/99

  ARCURI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 58254/00

  As regards the proceeds of the criminal offence (productum sceleris), the Court recalls that it has dealt with a case where the confiscation order followed on from the applicant's prosecution, trial and ultimate conviction (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, §§ 9-18, ECHR 2001-VII) and with cases in which a confiscation measure was imposed independently of a criminal charge in respect of the applicant's assets that were deemed to have been unlawfully acquired (see Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, 5 July 2001; and Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, § 29) or intended for use in illegal activities (see Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002).
• EGMR, 04.09.2001 - 52439/99

  RIELA ET AUTRES contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 58254/00

  As regards the proceeds of the criminal offence (productum sceleris), the Court recalls that it has dealt with a case where the confiscation order followed on from the applicant's prosecution, trial and ultimate conviction (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, §§ 9-18, ECHR 2001-VII) and with cases in which a confiscation measure was imposed independently of a criminal charge in respect of the applicant's assets that were deemed to have been unlawfully acquired (see Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, 5 July 2001; and Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, § 29) or intended for use in illegal activities (see Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002).

 
• EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90

  WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 58254/00

  In the former situation the Court accepted that the confiscation order constituted a "penalty" within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Phillips v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 51, and, mutatis mutandis, Welch v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 9 February 1995, Series A no. 307-A, § 35), whilst in the latter cases it found that the impugned interference was to be considered from the standpoint of the State's right "to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest" (see the authorities cited above).
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 58254/00

  The Court sees no reason to find otherwise, the instant case being distinguishable from the cases where the domestic authorities ordered forfeiture of physical things which had been the object of the offence (obiectum sceleris) (see, for example, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, § 51) or by means of which the offence had been committed (instrumentum sceleris), even where such things belonged to third parties (see, for example, C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, 26 June 2001; and Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A, § 34).
• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 58254/00

  The Court sees no reason to find otherwise, the instant case being distinguishable from the cases where the domestic authorities ordered forfeiture of physical things which had been the object of the offence (obiectum sceleris) (see, for example, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, § 51) or by means of which the offence had been committed (instrumentum sceleris), even where such things belonged to third parties (see, for example, C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, 26 June 2001; and Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A, § 34).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 58254/00

  As regards the proceeds of the criminal offence (productum sceleris), the Court recalls that it has dealt with a case where the confiscation order followed on from the applicant's prosecution, trial and ultimate conviction (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, §§ 9-18, ECHR 2001-VII) and with cases in which a confiscation measure was imposed independently of a criminal charge in respect of the applicant's assets that were deemed to have been unlawfully acquired (see Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, 5 July 2001; and Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, § 29) or intended for use in illegal activities (see Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002).