Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AON CONSEIL ET COURTAGE S.A. ET CHRISTIAN DE CLARENS S.A. c. FRANCE

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation de P1-1 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure nationale (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AON CONSEIL ET COURTAGE S.A. AND CHRISTIAN DE CLARENS S.A. v. FRANCE

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 70160/01
• EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 70160/01

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

• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 36677/97

  S.A. DANGEVILLE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 70160/01

  The Government submitted that when the applicant companies first made a claim on 20 December 1993 they no longer had a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Although, in the light of the S.A. Dangeville v. France judgment (16 April 2002, no. 36677/97, ECHR 2002-III), SGAP Expansion, OGIA and Christian de Clarens had in 1978 possessed a claim against the State that met the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the factual and legal positions were so significantly different that the decision reached by the Court in the Dangeville case was not transposable: whereas S.A. Dangeville had contested the erroneous payment of VAT from the outset, the three companies involved in the present case had waited until 20 December 1993, that is to say until fifteen years after the payment of the VAT in issue and, more specifically, until after the Paris Administrative Court's judgment of 1 July 1992 in favour of Dangeville S.A. The Government explained that Article L 190 of the Code of Tax Procedure enabled taxpayers with statute-barred claims to rely, despite their past inaction, on changes in the case-law to obtain a refund of sums which the new decision had shown to have been paid erroneously.

  Admittedly, it was only in 1992 that, in a judgment on an appeal by S.A. Dangeville, a company in the same situation (see S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, ECHR 2002-III), the Administrative Court of Appeal held that Article 256 of the General Tax Code could not apply as it was incompatible with the provisions of the Sixth Community Directive on VAT, which France had implemented belatedly.

• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

  STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 70160/01

  Even though the CJEC was not required to apply Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (indeed, that provision was not referred to in the request for a preliminary ruling), we consider it unfortunate for there to be any hint of a divergence of opinion between Europe's two highest courts, which are careful to avoid such differences (see, for example, the Court's judgments in the cases of Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, ECHR 1999-I and Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, ECHR 2002-III, and, respectively, the CJEC's judgments in the cases of Kingdom of Spain v. United Kingdom, 12 September 2006, case C 145/04, and Roquette Frères S.A. - a separate case to that mentioned above - 22 October 2002, case C-94/00; see also the European Court of Human Rights' judgment in the case of Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, § 58, ECHR 2006-..., which expressly refers to the CJEC's judgment in Regina Virginia Hepple v Adjudication Officer and Adjudication Officer v Anna Stec, case C 196-98).
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 70160/01

  Even though the CJEC was not required to apply Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (indeed, that provision was not referred to in the request for a preliminary ruling), we consider it unfortunate for there to be any hint of a divergence of opinion between Europe's two highest courts, which are careful to avoid such differences (see, for example, the Court's judgments in the cases of Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, ECHR 1999-I and Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, ECHR 2002-III, and, respectively, the CJEC's judgments in the cases of Kingdom of Spain v. United Kingdom, 12 September 2006, case C 145/04, and Roquette Frères S.A. - a separate case to that mentioned above - 22 October 2002, case C-94/00; see also the European Court of Human Rights' judgment in the case of Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, § 58, ECHR 2006-..., which expressly refers to the CJEC's judgment in Regina Virginia Hepple v Adjudication Officer and Adjudication Officer v Anna Stec, case C 196-98).

 
• EuGH, 22.10.2002 - C-94/00

  Roquette Frères

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 70160/01

  Even though the CJEC was not required to apply Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (indeed, that provision was not referred to in the request for a preliminary ruling), we consider it unfortunate for there to be any hint of a divergence of opinion between Europe's two highest courts, which are careful to avoid such differences (see, for example, the Court's judgments in the cases of Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, ECHR 1999-I and Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, ECHR 2002-III, and, respectively, the CJEC's judgments in the cases of Kingdom of Spain v. United Kingdom, 12 September 2006, case C 145/04, and Roquette Frères S.A. - a separate case to that mentioned above - 22 October 2002, case C-94/00; see also the European Court of Human Rights' judgment in the case of Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, § 58, ECHR 2006-..., which expressly refers to the CJEC's judgment in Regina Virginia Hepple v Adjudication Officer and Adjudication Officer v Anna Stec, case C 196-98).
• EuGH, 12.09.2006 - C-145/04

  Spanien / Vereinigtes Königreich - Europäisches Parlament - Wahlen - Wahlrecht - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 70160/01

  Even though the CJEC was not required to apply Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (indeed, that provision was not referred to in the request for a preliminary ruling), we consider it unfortunate for there to be any hint of a divergence of opinion between Europe's two highest courts, which are careful to avoid such differences (see, for example, the Court's judgments in the cases of Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, ECHR 1999-I and Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, ECHR 2002-III, and, respectively, the CJEC's judgments in the cases of Kingdom of Spain v. United Kingdom, 12 September 2006, case C 145/04, and Roquette Frères S.A. - a separate case to that mentioned above - 22 October 2002, case C-94/00; see also the European Court of Human Rights' judgment in the case of Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, § 58, ECHR 2006-..., which expressly refers to the CJEC's judgment in Regina Virginia Hepple v Adjudication Officer and Adjudication Officer v Anna Stec, case C 196-98).
• EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 41400/98

  MONFORTE SANCHO, GARCIA MORENO, ROIG ESPERT, ROIG ESPERT ET ICARDO GARCIA contre …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 70160/01

  38366/97, 38688/97, 40777/98, 40843/98, 41015/98, 41400/98, 41446/98, 41484/98, 41487/98 and 41509/98, § 37, ECHR 2001-I).
• EuGH, 28.11.2000 - C-88/99

  Roquette Frères

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 70160/01

  In its Roquette Frères S.A. judgment of 28 November 2000 (C-88/99), the Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEC) gave the following answer to a question referred for a preliminary ruling on the provisions of Article L 190 of the Code of Tax Procedure:.
• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 70160/01

  The Court reiterates that the fact that the administrative courts relied on that domestic limitation period cannot by itself justify a failure to comply with the present requirements of European law (see, mutatis mutandis, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 36, Series A no. 11, and S.A. Dangeville, cited above, § 47).
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 70160/01

  In any event, the Court considers that the applicant companies had at least a legitimate expectation of being able to obtain reimbursement of the disputed sum (Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, § 51, Series A no. 222; S.A. Dangeville, cited above; and S.A. Cabinet Diot and S.A. Gras Savoye, cited above).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 70160/01

  A claim of that nature "constituted an asset" and therefore amounted to "a possession within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1, which was accordingly applicable in the present case" (see, among other authorities, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, § 31; S.A. Dangeville, cited above, § 48; and S.A. Cabinet Diot and S.A. Gras Savoye, cited above, § 26).

• EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 3991/03

  Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - award Non-pecuniary damage - finding of a …

  Thus, the Court considers that the applicant company's right to claim a deduction of the input VAT amounted to at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right amounting to a "possession" within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, § 51, Series A no. 222; S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-III; Cabinet Diot and S.A. Gras Savoye v. France, nos. 49217/99 and 49218/99, § 26, 22 July 2003; and Aon Conseil and Courtage S.A. and Christian de Clarens S.A. v. France, no. 70160/01, § 45, ECHR 2007-...).