Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VARVARA c. ITALIE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation de l'article 7 - Pas de peine sans loi (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege) Violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Protection de la propriété (article 1 al. 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Respect des biens) Dommage matériel - décision réservée Préjudice ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VARVARA v. ITALY [Extracts]

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) Pecuniary damage - reserved ...

Besprechungen u.ä.

• zis-online.com (Aufsatz mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

  Sud Fondi, Varvara und G.I.E.M.: Die Entscheidungen des EGMR zu einer italienischen Non-Conviction-Based-Confiscation als Indikator für die Konventionswidrigkeit des deutschen § 76a Abs. 4 StGB? (Christian Schörner; ZIS 2019, 144)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Varvara v. Italy

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VARVARA c. ITALIE

  Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [FRA]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (23)

• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 17475/09

  In connection with the proceeds of a criminal activity (productum sceleris), the Court observes that it has considered a case in which the confiscation followed the applicant's conviction (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, §§ 9-18, ECHR 2001-VII) and cases in which confiscation had been ordered independently of the existence of any criminal proceedings because the applicant's property had been assumed to be of unlawful origin (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, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, § 29) or to be used for unlawful activities (see Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002).

  Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 17, §§ 30 and 43; Prisco v. Italy (dec.), no. 38662/97, 15 June 1999; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, 5 July 2001; and Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001.

• EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 41087/98

  PHILLIPS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 17475/09

  In connection with the proceeds of a criminal activity (productum sceleris), the Court observes that it has considered a case in which the confiscation followed the applicant's conviction (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, §§ 9-18, ECHR 2001-VII) and cases in which confiscation had been ordered independently of the existence of any criminal proceedings because the applicant's property had been assumed to be of unlawful origin (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, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, § 29) or to be used for unlawful activities (see Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002).

  See Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 34, ECHR 2001-VII (relating to the Drug Trafficking Act 1994), where the applicant had had to pay the £ 91, 400 confiscated, on threat of an additional two-year prison sentence; Grayson and Barnham v. the United Kingdom, nos.

• EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 52024/99

  ARCURI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 17475/09

  In connection with the proceeds of a criminal activity (productum sceleris), the Court observes that it has considered a case in which the confiscation followed the applicant's conviction (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, §§ 9-18, ECHR 2001-VII) and cases in which confiscation had been ordered independently of the existence of any criminal proceedings because the applicant's property had been assumed to be of unlawful origin (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, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, § 29) or to be used for unlawful activities (see Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002).

  Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 17, §§ 30 and 43; Prisco v. Italy (dec.), no. 38662/97, 15 June 1999; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, 5 July 2001; and Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001.

 
• EGMR, 04.09.2001 - 52439/99

  RIELA ET AUTRES contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 17475/09

  In connection with the proceeds of a criminal activity (productum sceleris), the Court observes that it has considered a case in which the confiscation followed the applicant's conviction (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, §§ 9-18, ECHR 2001-VII) and cases in which confiscation had been ordered independently of the existence of any criminal proceedings because the applicant's property had been assumed to be of unlawful origin (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, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, § 29) or to be used for unlawful activities (see Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002).

  Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 17, §§ 30 and 43; Prisco v. Italy (dec.), no. 38662/97, 15 June 1999; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, 5 July 2001; and Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001.

• EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 28078/95

  C.M. c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 17475/09

  For the same reason, the present case also differs from C.M. v. France ([dec.], no. 28078/95, ECHR 2001-VII) and Air Canada v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A), in which the confiscation was ordered after the defendants" conviction in respect of property which was the instrumentum sceleris and was in the possession of third persons.

  See Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV, and C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, 26 June 2001.

• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 17475/09

  Given the connection between Articles 6 § 2 and 7 § 1 of the Convention (see Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 100, Series A no. 39), the Court considers that the rule reiterated by it in the preceding paragraph is also valid from the angle of Article 7 of the Convention, which requires that no one can be held guilty of a criminal offence committed by another.

  A comparison between Article 5 § 1 a) and Articles 6 § 2 and 7 § 1 shows that for the purposes of the Convention there can be no "conviction" unless it has been established in accordance with the law that there has been an offence - a criminal or, if appropriate, a disciplinary offence (see Engel and Others v. Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 68, Series A no. 22, and Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 100, Series A no. 39).

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 17475/09

  It follows that the need to ascertain whether a fair balance has been struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 69, Series A no. 52, and Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-XII) becomes relevant only once it has been established that the impugned interference satisfied the requirement of lawfulness and was not arbitrary.
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 17475/09

  See AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, §§ 34, 56-62 (re. sections 44 (b) and 44 (f) of the 1952 Act); Air Canada v. United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316, § 52 (re. section 141 of the 1979 Act, which provided no protection for innocent third parties); Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002; Webb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56054/00, 10 February 2004; and Saccoccia v. Austria, no. 69917/01, §§ 87-91, 18 December 2008.
• EGMR, 23.11.2000 - 25701/94

  Konstantin II.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 17475/09

  It follows that the need to ascertain whether a fair balance has been struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 69, Series A no. 52, and Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-XII) becomes relevant only once it has been established that the impugned interference satisfied the requirement of lawfulness and was not arbitrary.
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 20496/02

  SILICKIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 17475/09

  In Silickiene v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, § 50, 10 April 2012, however, the Court established the opposite principle: it held that although "as a general principle, persons whose property is confiscated should be formally granted the status of parties to the proceedings in which the confiscation is ordered", it accepted, "in the particular circumstances of the case", the confiscation of property belonging to third persons following the defendant's death during criminal proceedings.
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 19955/05

  GRAYSON AND BARNHAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

  YILDIRIM contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 28019/10

  WOOLLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90

  WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 23.07.2002 - 34619/97

  JANOSEVIC c. SUEDE
• EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92

  S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 70074/01

  VALICO S.R.L. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 11.10.1988 - 10868/84

  WOUKAM MOUDEFO v. FRANCE

• EGMR, 02.05.2024 - 35271/19

  THE J. PAUL GETTY TRUST AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  The Court has further held that these types of confiscation, whether or not meted out by courts of criminal jurisdiction, being restorative in nature, fall outside the scope of Article 7 of the Convention (see, Ulemek v. Serbia (dec.), no. 41680/13, §§ 55-58, 2 February 2021, and the case-law cited therein; contrast with, for example, Welch v. the United Kingdom, no. 17440/90, §§ 28-35, 9 February 1995; Varvara v. Italy, no. 17475/09, § 72, 29 October 2013; and G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others, cited above, § 233).
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 1660/03

  PLECHKOV c. ROUMANIE

  Pour ce qui est de la confiscation de biens, la Cour a affirmé à plusieurs reprises qu'une telle mesure relevait du second alinéa de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (AGOSI c. Royaume-Uni, 24 octobre 1986, § 51, série A no 108, Raimondo c. Italie, 22 février 1994, § 29, série A no 281-A, Butler c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 41661/98, CEDH 2002-VI, Yildirim c. Italie (déc.), no 38602/02, CEDH 2003-IV, Sud Fondi srl et autres c. Italie, no 75909/01, § 129, 20 janvier 2009 et Varvara c. Italie, no 17475/09, § 83, 29 octobre 2013).
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 32889/09

  IORDACHESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Il s'ensuit que la nécessité de rechercher si un juste équilibre a été maintenu entre les exigences de l'intérêt général de la communauté et les impératifs de la sauvegarde des droits fondamentaux de l'individu ne peut se faire sentir que lorsqu'il s'est avéré que l'ingérence litigieuse a respecté le principe de la légalité et n'était pas arbitraire (Frizen c. Russie, no 58254/00, § 33, 24 mars 2005, Baklanov c. Russie, no 68443/01, § 39, 9 juin 2005, Ismayilov c. Russie, no 30352/03, § 31, 6 novembre 2008, et Varvara c. Italie, no 17475/09, § 84, 29 octobre 2013).

 
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 47163/09

  S.C. CHAW CHAW IMPEX S.R.L. c. ROUMANIE

  Toujours eu égard à ce qui précède, la Cour relève de surcroît que la confiscation des biens litigieux n'était pas rattachée à une « infraction pénale'fondée sur des dispositions juridiques générales (voir, a contrario, Sud Fondi SRL c. Italie (déc.), no 75909/01, 30 août 2007, et Varvara c. Italie, no 17475/09, § 59, 29 octobre 2013).
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 37858/14

  CARREFOUR FRANCE c. FRANCE

  Dans le même sens, elle a jugé que le principe de légalité en droit pénal, tel qu'il se trouve consacré par l'article 7 de la Convention, induit l'interdiction de punir une personne alors que l'infraction a été commise par une autre ; autrement dit, cette disposition commande d'interdire qu'en droit pénal l'on puisse répondre pour le fait d'autrui (Varvara c. Italie, no 17475/09, §§ 63 et 66, 29 octobre 2013 ; voir aussi G.I.E.M. S.R.L. et autres c. Italie [GC], nos 1828/06 et deux autres, §§ 271-274, 28 juin 2018).
• EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 42224/11

  ERIOMENCO c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  Elle rappelle avoir affirmé à plusieurs reprises qu'une confiscation de biens relevait du second alinéa de cet article (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, AGOSI c. Royaume-Uni, 24 octobre 1986, § 51, série A no 108, Phillips c. Royaume-Uni, no 41087/98, § 51, CEDH 2001-VII, Varvara c. Italie, no 17475/09, § 83, 29 octobre 2013, et Vasilevski c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine, no 22653/08, § 52, 28 avril 2016).
• EGMR - 5481/21 (anhängig)

  DOYEN SPORTS INVESTMENTS LIMITED v. PORTUGAL

  Was the suspension of debit operations, and its renewal, on the applicant company's bank account lawful? Did it pursue a legitimate aim? Was it proportionate to the aim pursued (see Varvara v. Italy, no. 17475/09, §§ 83-84, 29 October 2013; and Filkin v. Portugal, no. 69729/12, §§ 84-92, 3 March 2020)?.
• EGMR - 32625/15 (anhängig)

  COPOS c. ROUMANIE

  Y a-t-il eu atteinte au droit du requérant au respect de ses biens, au sens de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1, en raison de sa condamnation au versement des obligations fiscales en faveur de l'État ? Plus particulièrement, le requérant a-t-il été privé de ses biens dans les conditions prévues par la loi, au sens de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (voir, par exemple, Iatridis c. Grèce [GC], no 31107/96, § 58, CEDH 1999-II, et, mutatis mutandis, Varvara c. Italie, no 17475/09, §§ 84-85, 29 octobre 2013) ?.
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 32619/08

  GHERGHE ET GUNA c. ROUMANIE

  Appréciation de la Cour 36. La Cour renvoie aux principes bien établis dans sa jurisprudence concernant le principe de légalité des délits et des peines et l'exigence de prévisibilité des effets de la loi pénale qui en découle (voir, par exemple, Korbely c. Hongrie [GC], no 9174/02, §§ 69-72, CEDH 2008, et Varvara c. Italie, no 17475/09, §§ 52-57, 29 octobre 2013).