Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PIRAS v. SAN MARINO

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

  GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 27803/16

  More recently in Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia (no. 36862/05, § 108, 12 May 2015, concerning a confiscation applied in civil proceedings), the Court also found that the civil proceedings in rem through which the applicants - one of whom had been directly accused of corruption in a separate set of criminal proceedings, and two other applicants, were presumed, as the accused's family members, to have benefited unduly from the proceeds of his crime - had suffered confiscations of their property, could not be considered to have been arbitrary or to have upset the proportionality test under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court found that it was reasonable for all three applicants to discharge their part of the burden of proof by refuting the prosecutor's substantiated suspicions about the wrongful origins of their assets.
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 12951/11

  VEITS v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 27803/16

  Notwithstanding the above finding, the Court must also ascertain whether the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity of putting his arguments before the domestic courts (see Veits v. Estonia, no. 12951/11, §§ 72 and 74, 15 January 2015, and Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 20496/02

  SILICKIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 27803/16

  Instead, proof on a balance of probabilities or a high probability of illicit origins, combined with the inability of the owner to prove the contrary, was found to suffice for the purposes of the proportionality test under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (compare also with the case of Silickiene v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, §§ 60-70, 10 April 2012, where a confiscation measure was applied to the widow of a corrupt public official).

 
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 27803/16

  As regards property presumed to have been acquired either in full or in part with the proceeds of drug-trafficking offences (see Webb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56054/00, 10 February 2004; and Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98) or by criminal organisations involved in drug-trafficking (see Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001 VII and Morabito and Others v. Italy (dec.), 58572/00, ECHR 7 June 2005) or from other illicit mafia-type activities (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 30, Series A no. 281-A), the Court did not see any problem in finding the confiscation measures to be proportionate, even in the absence of a conviction establishing the guilt of the accused.
• EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 52024/99

  ARCURI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 27803/16

  As regards property presumed to have been acquired either in full or in part with the proceeds of drug-trafficking offences (see Webb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56054/00, 10 February 2004; and Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98) or by criminal organisations involved in drug-trafficking (see Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001 VII and Morabito and Others v. Italy (dec.), 58572/00, ECHR 7 June 2005) or from other illicit mafia-type activities (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 30, Series A no. 281-A), the Court did not see any problem in finding the confiscation measures to be proportionate, even in the absence of a conviction establishing the guilt of the accused.
• EGMR, 10.02.2004 - 56054/00

  WEBB v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 27803/16

  As regards property presumed to have been acquired either in full or in part with the proceeds of drug-trafficking offences (see Webb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56054/00, 10 February 2004; and Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98) or by criminal organisations involved in drug-trafficking (see Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001 VII and Morabito and Others v. Italy (dec.), 58572/00, ECHR 7 June 2005) or from other illicit mafia-type activities (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 30, Series A no. 281-A), the Court did not see any problem in finding the confiscation measures to be proportionate, even in the absence of a conviction establishing the guilt of the accused.
• EGMR, 28.08.2012 - 17153/11

  VUCKOVIC ET AUTRES c. SERBIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 27803/16

  The Court reiterates that States are dispensed from answering before an international body for their acts before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system, and those who wish to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court as concerns complaints against a State are thus obliged to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system (see, among many authorities, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 65, Reports of Judgments and Decisions, 1996-IV, and Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia [GC], no. 17153/11, § 70, 25 March 2014).
• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  JOKELA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 27803/16

  Notwithstanding the above finding, the Court must also ascertain whether the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity of putting his arguments before the domestic courts (see Veits v. Estonia, no. 12951/11, §§ 72 and 74, 15 January 2015, and Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV).

• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  BALSAMO v. SAN MARINO

  The Court notes that in the present case the sums were found by the domestic courts to have illicit origins and that during such proceedings the applicants, who were legally represented, have been afforded a reasonable opportunity of putting their arguments before the domestic courts (see Piras v San. Marino, (dec.) no. 27803/16, § 59, 27 June 2017 and Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 22.02.2024 - 9166/14

  GRATION TREYD, TOV v. UKRAINE

  The Court considers that the application falls to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 only (see Piras v. San Marino (dec.), no. 27803/16, § 47, 27 June 2017, and, mutatis mutandis, G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 78494/14

  NIKOLAYENKO ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  En tout état de cause, à supposer même que, entre février 2012 et octobre 2014, 1es requérants ne disposaient d'aucun recours leur permettant de contester le maintien en place de la saisie, la Cour juge qu'une telle impossibilité temporaire alléguée n'entraîne pas en soi de violation de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (voir, par exemple, Atanasov et Ovcharov, précité, et Piras c. San Marin (déc.), no 27803/16, 27 juin 2016, affaires où les requérants ne disposaient d'aucun recours contre la saisie pendant un peu plus de quatre ans et près de deux ans respectivement).
• EGMR, 03.03.2022 - 51853/19

  SHORAZOVA v. MALTA

  The Court observes that the freezing of the applicant's property was applied as a provisional measure aimed at securing enforcement of a possible confiscation order (which could be imposed at the outcome of criminal proceedings) which is normally accepted as being in the general interest (see, for example, D?¾inic, cited above, § 61 and the case-law cited therein), as is the case with the fight against money laundering (see Piras v. San Marino (dec.), no. 27803/16, § 54, 27 June 2007 and the case-law cited therein).