Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 21274/08, 21904/08, 26193/08, 33248/08, 36604/08, 41334/08, 43125/08 |
Zitiervorschläge
EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 21274/08, 21904/08, 26193/08, 33248/08, 36604/08, 41334/08, 43125/08 (https://dejure.org/2022,39339)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.12.2022 - 21274/08, 21904/08, 26193/08, 33248/08, 36604/08, 41334/08, 43125/08 (https://dejure.org/2022,39339)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. Dezember 2022 - 21274/08, 21904/08, 26193/08, 33248/08, 36604/08, 41334/08, 43125/08 (https://dejure.org/2022,39339)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2022,39339) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
YUSIFLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
YUSIFLI v. AZERBAIJAN and 7 other applications
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93
IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 21274/08
The second and third rules, which are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, must be construed in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see, among many authorities, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 44, ECHR 1999-V). - EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95
JOKELA v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 21274/08
The Court observes that it must also ascertain whether the applicants were afforded a reasonable opportunity to put their arguments before the domestic courts (see Veits, cited above, §§ 72 and 74, and Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV). - EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91
AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 21274/08
As to which exactly of the three above-mentioned property rules should apply to the applicants' situation, the Court reiterates that where a confiscation measure has been imposed independently of the existence of a criminal conviction but rather as a result of separate "civil" (within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention) judicial proceedings aimed at the recovery of assets deemed to have been acquired unlawfully, such a measure, even if it involves the irrevocable forfeiture of possessions, nevertheless constitutes control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many other authorities, Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A; Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Veits v. Estonia, no. 12951/11, § 70, 15 January 2015; and Sun v. Russia, no. 31004/02, § 25, 5 February 2009).
- EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 69201/11
MAHMUDOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
21274/08 and 6 others, § 50, 6 December 2022). - EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 42574/13
MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
21274/08 and 6 others, § 71, 6 December 2022).