Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VOICULESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CAMELIA RODICA VOICULESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• KAG Mainz, 11.12.2012 - M 29/12

  Stufenzuordnung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 502/15

  29/12/2014.
• EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90

  WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 502/15

  The wording of that provision indicates that the starting point in any assessment of the existence of a penalty is whether the measure in issue is imposed following conviction for a "criminal offence" (see Welch v. the United Kingdom, 9 February 1995, § 28, Series A no. 307-A).
• KAGH, 05.07.2013 - K 24/12

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 502/15

  24/12/2014.

 
• EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 52024/99

  ARCURI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 502/15

  In this connection, the Court firstly notes that the proceedings in which the seizure measures were decided formed part of a policy aimed at the prevention of crime, in relation to which the States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation both with regard to the existence of a problem affecting the public interest which requires measures of control and the appropriate way to apply such measures (see Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII).
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

  YILDIRIM contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 502/15

  Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that the seizure in issue involved a finding of guilt subsequent to a criminal charge; it therefore did not constitute a "penalty" within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention (see Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, § 3, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 12951/11

  VEITS v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 502/15

  Furthermore, it considers that the measures in question, namely the seizure of property obtained through crime, were in line with the general interests of the community (see Veits v. Estonia, no. 12951/11, § 73, 15 January 2015).
• EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 4514/07

  BONGIORNO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 502/15

  Having regard to the wide margin of appreciation enjoyed by States in the pursuit of a policy designed to combat crime, and to the fact that the domestic court afforded the applicants a reasonable opportunity to put their case through adversarial proceedings, the Court concludes that the interference with the applicants' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was not disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see, mutatis mutandis, Telbis and Viziteu, cited above, § 81, and Bongiorno and Others v. Italy, no. 4514/07, §§ 44-51, 5 January 2010).
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 47911/15

  TELBIS AND VIZITEU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 502/15

  Moreover, the Court has previously found that similar proceedings relating to seizure of assets from third parties did not concern a "criminal charge" against the applicants (see Telbis and Viziteu v. Romania, no. 47911/15, § 49, 26 June 2018).
• EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 60858/15

  ALEXANDRU MARIAN IANCU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 502/15

  The Court further notes that those challenges had been examined and rejected in reasoned decisions, in compliance with the provisions of Article 67(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the situation complained of was not listed among the grounds for disqualification of judges in criminal proceedings as provided by law (see Alexandru Marian Iancu v. Romania, no. 60858/15, § 38, 4 February 2020).

• EGMR, 02.05.2024 - 35271/19

  THE J. PAUL GETTY TRUST AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  It has consequently found that these types of confiscations, being aimed at the recovery of an object in the public interest, can be applied to third parties owning the relevant objects in the absence of their participation in the criminal proceedings, of a criminal conviction or of a finding of guilt, provided that the fact of the unlawfully acquired possession has been objectively ascertained (see, among other authorities, Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no 38602/02, 10 April 2003; Telbis and Viziteu v. Romania, no. 47911/15, § 49, 26 June 2018; Balsamo, cited above, §§ 60-65; and Voiculescu and Others v. Romania (dec.), no. 502/15, §§ 12-14, 22 February 2022), and that the persons concerned have had the right to present their arguments before the competent authorities (see Yildirim (dec.), and Balsamo, § 63, both cited above); in this context, a reasonable possibility of putting the case before the authorities, after the criminal proceedings have come to an end, suffices for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Zaghini v. San Marino, no. 3405/21, § 67, 11 May 2023).
• VG Düsseldorf, 25.06.2015 - 8 K 555/15

  Rechtmäßigkeit der Abschiebung eines Asylbewerbers aufgrund der Zuständigkeit …

  Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf, Urteil vom 19. Mai 2015 - 8 K 2099/15.A - Beschlüsse vom 22. April 2015 - 8 L 928/15.A -, vom 13. April 2015 - 8 L 94/15.A -, vom 10. April 2015 - 8 L 1170/15.A - und vom 7. April 2015 - 8 L 502/15.A -, - 8 L 356/15.A - und - 8 L 220/15.A -.