Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DYRWOLD v. SWEDEN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 13, Art. 17, Art. 34 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (1)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  Auszug aus EKMR, 07.09.1990 - 12259/86

  Series A no. 131, p. 23, para.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 72118/01

  KHAMIDOV v. RUSSIA

  Cela dit, le propriétaire exclusif d'une société peut se prétendre « victime ", sens de l'article 34 de la Convention, de mesures dirigées contre son entreprise puisque, dans le cas d'une société unipersonnelle, il n'existe aucun risque de divergence d'opinion parmi les actionnaires ou entre les actionnaires et le conseil d'administration quant à la réalité des atteintes aux droits protégés par la Convention ou quant à la manière la plus adéquate d'y réagir (voir Ankarcrona c. Suède (déc.), no 35178/97, 27 juin 2000 ; Dyrwold c. Suède, no 12259/86, décision de la Commission du 7 septembre 1990 ; et, plus récemment, Nosov c. Russie (déc.), no 30877/02, 20 octobre 2005).
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 5294/14

  ALBERT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  This group has included cases brought by shareholders of small or family-owned or family-run companies or cooperatives, notably where a sole owner of a company has complained about the measures taken in respect of his or her company (see, as early examples, Yarrow and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 9266/81, Commission decision of 18 January 1983, D.R. 30, p. 155, where the victim status of the first applicant, who was the sole shareholder, was accepted without discussion of the issue, and Dyrwold v. Sweden, no. 12259/86, Commission decision of 7 September 1990; and, as recent examples, S.C. Fiercolect Impex S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 26429/07, §§ 38-41, 13 December 2016; Vujović and Lipa D.O.O. v. Montenegro, no. 18912/15, §§ 29-30, 20 February 2018; Vladimirova, cited above, §§ 40-41) or where all shareholders of a small cooperative applied to the Court as applicants (see Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 36079/06, §§ 38-42, 29 July 2010).
• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 30877/02

  NOSOV v. RUSSIA

  On the other hand, the Court reiterates that the sole owner of a company can claim to be a "victim" within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention in so far as the impugned measures taken with regard to his company are concerned, because in case of a sole owner there is no risk of differences of opinion among shareholders or between shareholders and a board of directors as to the reality of infringements of the Convention rights or the most appropriate way of reacting to such infringements (see Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, 27 June 2000; Dyrwold v. Sweden, no. 12259/86, Commission decision of 7 September 1990).
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 29309/03

  [ENG]

  On the other hand, the sole owner of a company can claim to be a "victim" within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention in so far as the impugned measures taken in respect of his company are concerned, because in the case of a sole owner there is no risk of differences of opinion among shareholders or between shareholders and a board of directors as to the reality of infringement of Convention rights or to the most appropriate way of reacting to such an infringement (see Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, 27 June 2000; Dyrwold v. Sweden, no. 12259/86, Commission decision of 7 September 1990; Nosov, cited above, or Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 123, ECHR 2007-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  S.C. FIERCOLECT IMPEX S.R.L. v. ROMANIA

  On the other hand, the sole owner of a company can claim to be a "victim" within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention in so far as the impugned measures taken in respect of his company are concerned, because in the case of a sole owner there is no risk of differences of opinion among shareholders or between shareholders and a board of directors as to the reality of infringement of Convention rights or to the most appropriate way of reacting to such an infringement (see Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, 27 June 2000; Dyrwold v. Sweden, no. 12259/86, Commission decision of 7 September 1990; and Gubiyev v. Russia, no. 29309/03, § 53, 19 July 2011).