Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OAO NEFTYANAYA KOMPANIYA YUKOS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 7, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1+1, ., Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1+13, Art. 1, ., P1, Art. 1, ., Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Ar... t. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1+18, Art. 18 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 49429/99

  CAPITAL BANK AD v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 14902/04

  The Court notes that it is undisputed between the parties that the applicant company was not under compulsory administration in April 2004 and that the case was properly introduced with the Court by the company's counsel Mr Gardner (see, by contrast, Capital bank AD v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 49429/99, 9 September 2004, and Credit and Industrial Bank v. the Czech Republic, no. 29010/95, §§ 43-52, ECHR 2003-XI (extracts)).

  All the more so if the issues raised by the case transcend the person and the interests of the applicant (see Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, §§ 74-80, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts), and, mutatis mutandis, Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-IX, with further references).

• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 31657/96

  BUSCARINI contre SAINT-MARIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 14902/04

  The Court recalls that a domestic court complies with the "established by law" criterion of Article 6 § 1 unless it acts in flagrant disregard of the applicable domestic laws governing its jurisdiction and procedures (see Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, §§ 98-99, ECHR 2000-VII; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002; and Buscarini v. San Marino (dec.), no. 31657/96, 4 May 2000).
• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 14902/04

  The Court recalls that a domestic court complies with the "established by law" criterion of Article 6 § 1 unless it acts in flagrant disregard of the applicable domestic laws governing its jurisdiction and procedures (see Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, §§ 98-99, ECHR 2000-VII; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002; and Buscarini v. San Marino (dec.), no. 31657/96, 4 May 2000).

 
• EGMR, 23.07.2002 - 34619/97

  JANOSEVIC c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 14902/04

  The latter fine, representing a very substantial sum of over half a billion euros, was imposed in proportion to the amount of the tax avoided, had no upper limit and was clearly intended as a punishment to deter re-offending (compare with 20 to 40 percent surcharge rates in the case of Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII and a 20 percent surcharge rate in the mentioned Jussila case).
• EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00

  LAVENTS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 14902/04

  The Court recalls that a domestic court complies with the "established by law" criterion of Article 6 § 1 unless it acts in flagrant disregard of the applicable domestic laws governing its jurisdiction and procedures (see Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, §§ 98-99, ECHR 2000-VII; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002; and Buscarini v. San Marino (dec.), no. 31657/96, 4 May 2000).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

  KARNER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 14902/04

  All the more so if the issues raised by the case transcend the person and the interests of the applicant (see Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, §§ 74-80, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts), and, mutatis mutandis, Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-IX, with further references).
• EGMR, 21.10.2003 - 29010/95

  CREDIT INDUSTRIEL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 14902/04

  The Court notes that it is undisputed between the parties that the applicant company was not under compulsory administration in April 2004 and that the case was properly introduced with the Court by the company's counsel Mr Gardner (see, by contrast, Capital bank AD v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 49429/99, 9 September 2004, and Credit and Industrial Bank v. the Czech Republic, no. 29010/95, §§ 43-52, ECHR 2003-XI (extracts)).