Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STATE HOLDING COMPANY LUGANSKVUGILLYA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 23.03.2000 - 38788/97

  SOCIETE FAUGYR FINANCE S.A. contre le LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 23938/05

  The Court observes that a legal entity "claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention and the Protocols thereto" may submit an application to it (see, for example, Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, judgment of 24 October 1995, Series A no. 330-A, and Société Faugyr Finance S.A. v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 38788/97, 23 March 2000), provided that it is a "non-governmental organisation" within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see RENFE v. Spain, no. 35216/97, Commission decision of 8 September 1997, DR 90, p. 179).
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 53984/00

  RADIO FRANCE ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 23938/05

  In order to determine whether any given legal person falls within that category, account must be taken of its legal status and, where appropriate, the rights that status gives it, the nature of the activity it carries out and the context in which it is carried out, and the degree of its independence from the political authorities (see Radio France and Others v. France (dec.), no. 53984/00, ECHR 2003-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 67534/01

  ROMASHOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 23938/05

  In relation to legal entities operating in Ukraine, the Court has recognised that such entities could be considered "governmental organisations" if they performed specific public duties under the supervision of the State authorities (see Novoseletskiy v. Ukraine, no. 47148/99, § 82, ECHR 2005 II (extracts)), were public enterprises in various areas of State activities, including the mining, energy and transportation sectors (see Romashov v. Ukraine, no. 67534/01, §§ 46-47, 27 July 2004; Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine, nos.

 
• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 35091/02

  MIKHAÏLENKI ET AUTRES c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 23938/05

  35091/02, 35196/02, 35201/02, 35204/02, 35945/02, 35949/02, 35953/02, 36800/02, 38296/02 and 42814/02, §§ 55 and 64, ECHR 2004-...; Kucherenko v. Ukraine, no. 27347/02, § 25, 15 December 2005), or if a majority or all shares belonged to the State such that the entities were fully dependent on, controlled and managed by the State (see Regent Company v. Ukraine, no. 773/03, § 7, 3 April 2008; Ryzhenkov and Zaytsev v. Ukraine, nos. 1805/03 and 6717/03, § 5, 13 December 2005; Pomazanyy and Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 9719/02, § 4, 4 April 2006).
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 1805/03

  RYZHENKOV AND ZAYTSEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 23938/05

  35091/02, 35196/02, 35201/02, 35204/02, 35945/02, 35949/02, 35953/02, 36800/02, 38296/02 and 42814/02, §§ 55 and 64, ECHR 2004-...; Kucherenko v. Ukraine, no. 27347/02, § 25, 15 December 2005), or if a majority or all shares belonged to the State such that the entities were fully dependent on, controlled and managed by the State (see Regent Company v. Ukraine, no. 773/03, § 7, 3 April 2008; Ryzhenkov and Zaytsev v. Ukraine, nos. 1805/03 and 6717/03, § 5, 13 December 2005; Pomazanyy and Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 9719/02, § 4, 4 April 2006).
• EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 27347/02

  KUCHERENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 23938/05

  35091/02, 35196/02, 35201/02, 35204/02, 35945/02, 35949/02, 35953/02, 36800/02, 38296/02 and 42814/02, §§ 55 and 64, ECHR 2004-...; Kucherenko v. Ukraine, no. 27347/02, § 25, 15 December 2005), or if a majority or all shares belonged to the State such that the entities were fully dependent on, controlled and managed by the State (see Regent Company v. Ukraine, no. 773/03, § 7, 3 April 2008; Ryzhenkov and Zaytsev v. Ukraine, nos. 1805/03 and 6717/03, § 5, 13 December 2005; Pomazanyy and Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 9719/02, § 4, 4 April 2006).
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 9719/02

  POMAZANYY AND SHEVCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 23938/05

  35091/02, 35196/02, 35201/02, 35204/02, 35945/02, 35949/02, 35953/02, 36800/02, 38296/02 and 42814/02, §§ 55 and 64, ECHR 2004-...; Kucherenko v. Ukraine, no. 27347/02, § 25, 15 December 2005), or if a majority or all shares belonged to the State such that the entities were fully dependent on, controlled and managed by the State (see Regent Company v. Ukraine, no. 773/03, § 7, 3 April 2008; Ryzhenkov and Zaytsev v. Ukraine, nos. 1805/03 and 6717/03, § 5, 13 December 2005; Pomazanyy and Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 9719/02, § 4, 4 April 2006).
• EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 773/03

  REGENT COMPANY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 23938/05

  35091/02, 35196/02, 35201/02, 35204/02, 35945/02, 35949/02, 35953/02, 36800/02, 38296/02 and 42814/02, §§ 55 and 64, ECHR 2004-...; Kucherenko v. Ukraine, no. 27347/02, § 25, 15 December 2005), or if a majority or all shares belonged to the State such that the entities were fully dependent on, controlled and managed by the State (see Regent Company v. Ukraine, no. 773/03, § 7, 3 April 2008; Ryzhenkov and Zaytsev v. Ukraine, nos. 1805/03 and 6717/03, § 5, 13 December 2005; Pomazanyy and Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 9719/02, § 4, 4 April 2006).
• EKMR, 08.09.1997 - 35216/97

  RENFE contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 23938/05

  The Court observes that a legal entity "claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention and the Protocols thereto" may submit an application to it (see, for example, Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, judgment of 24 October 1995, Series A no. 330-A, and Société Faugyr Finance S.A. v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 38788/97, 23 March 2000), provided that it is a "non-governmental organisation" within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see RENFE v. Spain, no. 35216/97, Commission decision of 8 September 1997, DR 90, p. 179).

• EGMR, 11.04.2023 - 10857/21

  Steag

  Furthermore, the applicant company does not hold any sort of monopoly position (compare JKP Vodovod Kraljevo v. Serbia (dec.), no. 57691/09, § 26, 16 October 2018) and does not participate in the exercise of governmental powers (compare State Holding Company LUGANSKVUGILLYA v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 23938/05, 27 January 2009).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 28502/08

  TRANSPETROL, A.S., v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court reiterates that a legal entity "claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention and the Protocols thereto" may submit an application to it, provided that it is a "non-governmental organisation" within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and that the idea behind this principle is to prevent a Contracting Party acting as both an applicant and a respondent party before the Court (see, for example, Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Turkey, no. 40998/98, § 81, ECHR 2007-V, and State Holding Company Luganksvugillya v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 23938/05, 27 January 2009).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 30383/03

  SIVOVA ET KOLEVA c. BULGARIE

  La situation est sensiblement différente dans la présente affaire étant donné que la société Helio-Tour-S, partie à la procédure en revendication, était une société commerciale, juridiquement et financièrement indépendante de l'Etat, régie par les règles de droit privé et ne jouissant d'aucun pouvoir exorbitant du droit commun dans l'exercice de ses activités (voir, mutatis mutandis, concernant la qualité d'organisation non gouvernementale au sens de l'article 34 de la Convention, Compagnie maritime de la République islamique d"Iran c. Turquie, no 40998/98, §§ 79-81, CEDH 2007-XIV, et State Holding Company Luganksvugillya c. Ukraine (déc.), no 23938/05, 27 janvier 2009).

 
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 10515/18

  TMMOB MIMARLAR ODASI c. TURQUIE

  Des entités de droit public n'exerçant pas de prérogatives gouvernementales (Les saints monastères c. Grèce, 9 décembre 1994, § 49, série A no 301-A ; Radio France et autres c. France, décision précitée, §§ 24-26 ; Österreichischer Rundfunk c. Autriche, no 35841/02, 7 décembre 2006) ou des entreprises publiques jouissant d'une indépendance institutionnelle et opérationnelle suffisante à l'égard de l'État (Compagnie de navigation de la République islamique d'Iran c. Turquie, no 40998/98, §§ 80-81, CEDH 2007-V, Ukraine-Tioumen c. Ukraine, no 22603/02, §§ 25-28, 22 novembre 2007, Unédic c. France, no 20153/04, §§ 48-59, 18 décembre 2008, et, a contrario, Zastava It Turs c. Serbie (déc.), no 24922/12, 9 avril 2013, et State Holding Company Luganksvugillya c. Ukraine (déc.), no 23938/05, 27 janvier 2009) peuvent être considérées comme des « organisations non gouvernementales'au sens de l'article 34 de la Convention.
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 21129/10

  COMPAGNIE NATIONALE DE PRODUCTION D'ÉNERGIE NUCLÉAIRE

  À la lumière de ce qui précède, la Cour n'est pas en mesure de s'écarter des constats opérés dans d'autres affaires relativement à des entreprises publiques ukrainiennes exerçant leurs activités dans des domaines tels que l'exploitation minière, l'énergie ou le transport (voir State Holding Company Luganksvugillya c. Ukraine (déc.), no 23938/05, 27 janvier 2009 et les affaires qui y sont citées).
• EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 40265/07

  VÝCHODOSLOVENSKÁ VODÁRENSKÁ SPOLOCNOST, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA

  The relevant case-law of the Court is set out in, for example, Radio France and Others v. France ((dec.), no. 53984/00, § 26, ECHR 2003-X); Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Turkey (no. 40998/98, §§ 78-81, ECHR 2007-V); State Holding Company Luganksvugillya v.Ukraine ((dec.), no. 23938/05, 27 January 2009); and Transpetrol, a.s. v. Slovakia ((dec.), no. 28502/08, 15 November 2011), all with further references.