Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  UNIYA OOO AND BELCOURT TRADING COMPANY v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Access to court) ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 4437/03
• EGMR, 19.06.2014 - 4437/03, 13290/03

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2014 - 4437/03

  In this way the Article embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is, the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect only (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, p. 18, § 36, Series A no. 18, and Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 50, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2014 - 4437/03

  In this way the Article embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is, the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect only (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, p. 18, § 36, Series A no. 18, and Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 50, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2014 - 4437/03

  The Court reiterates that even where legal fees have not yet been actually paid by a client they remain recoverable (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV).

• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2014 - 4437/03

  In such circumstances Belcourt is entitled to receive a sum of money corresponding to the value of the alcohol (see Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 71, Series A no. 296-A), plus compensation for any consequential damage.
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 68490/01

  STANKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2014 - 4437/03

  In the case of Stankov v. Bulgaria (no. 68490/01, §§ 59 et seq., 12 July 2007) the Court considered that the imposition of a considerable financial burden on the plaintiff after the conclusion of proceedings could act as a restriction on the right to a court (see also Klauz v. Croatia, no. 28963/10, §§ 86 et seq., 18 July 2013).
• EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 49429/99

  CAPITAL BANK AD v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2014 - 4437/03

  The Court reiterates that in cases which, as is the case with the one at hand, primarily involve pecuniary claims, they can be transferred to other persons, namely their legal successors (see Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 78, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94

  BELLET c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2014 - 4437/03

  In essence, the applicant companies alleged that they did not have a "clear, practical opportunity to challenge an act that [was] an interference with [their] rights" (see Bellet v. France, 4 December 1995, p. 42, § 36, Series A no. 333-B).
• EGMR, 23.07.2002 - 36985/97

  VASTBERGA TAXI AKTIEBOLAG AND VULIC v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2014 - 4437/03

  In the case of Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic v. Sweden (no. 36985/97, § 102, 23 July 2002), the Court found, in the context of tax assessment proceedings, that an undue delay in the court determination of the main issue concerning the imposition of additional taxes and tax surcharges made access to the courts ineffective.
• EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 16595/02

  GOLOVKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2014 - 4437/03

  That situation gave rise to a finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the case of Golovkin v. Russia (no. 16595/02, §§ 35 and 44, 3 April 2008).
• EGMR, 20.10.2010 - 9926/03

  RF SPOL. S R.O. v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2014 - 4437/03

  Even if, in domestic terms, the first applicant company's obligations and claims were formally extinguished after its liquidation, the dispute before Court under the Convention remains unresolved, and the company's successor has a legitimate interest in obtaining a final determination of that case by the Court (see for comparison RF spol. s.r.o. v. Slovakia (dec.), 9926/03, 20 October 2010).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51357/07

  NAÏT-LIMAN v. SWITZERLAND

  In Uniya OOO and Belcourt Trading Company v. Russia (nos. 4437/03 and 13290/03, 19 June 2014), the Court, dealing with an Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 case, held that it "is mindful of the principle of effective protection of the rights guaranteed by the Convention" (§ 284).
• EGMR, 12.07.2023 - 1828/06

  G.I.E.M. S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Tel est a fortiori le cas lorsque les questions soulevées par la cause dépassent la personne et les intérêts du requérant (Capital Bank AD c. Bulgarie, no 49429/99, § 78, CEDH 2005 XII (extraits), Uniya OOO et Belcourt Trading Company c. Russie, nos 4437/03 et 13290/03, 19 juin 2014, Aviakompaniya A.T.I., ZAT c. Ukraine, no 1006/07, 5 octobre 2017, Euromak Metal Doo c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine, no 68039/14, 14 juin 2018, et Timakov et OOO ID Rubezh c. Russie, nos 46232/10 et 74770/10, 8 septembre 2020).
• EGMR, 14.06.2018 - 68039/14

  EUROMAK METAL DOO v. THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

  Accordingly, the Court notes that even if, in domestic terms, the applicant company's obligations and claims were formally extinguished after its removal from the register of companies, the dispute before the Court under the Convention remains unresolved, and Ms and Mr Pavlovski, who have expressed their wish to continue with the proceedings before the Court, have a legitimate interest in obtaining a final determination of that case by the Court (see, for instance, Uniya OOO and Belcourt Trading Company v. Russia, nos. 4437/03 and 13290/03, § 263, 19 June 2014, with further references).

• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 54184/11

  OOO KD-KONSALTING c. RUSSIE

  D'autres dispositions pertinentes en l'espèce des articles 81 et 82 du CPP sont exposées dans les arrêts Lachikhina c. Russie (no 38783/07, § 30, 10 octobre 2017), et Uniya OOO et Belcourt Trading Company c. Russie (nos 4437/03 et 13290/03, § 234, 19 juin 2014).
• EGMR, 04.05.2017 - 39210/07

  OSIPKOVS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  It is true that in the absence of a victim's successor the case before the Court may be pursued where respect for human rights so requires (see Uniya OOO and Belcourt Trading Company v. Russia, nos. 4437/03 and 13290/03, § 260, 19 June 2014, with case-law cited therein).
• EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 27879/13

  BOKOVA c. RUSSIE

  Les autres dispositions de l'article 115 du CPP pertinentes en l'espèce sont exposées dans l'arrêt Uniya OOO et Belcourt Trading Company c. Russie (nos 4437/03 et 13290/03, § 242, 19 juin 2014).
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 45825/11

  BARKANOV v. RUSSIA

  Les dispositions pertinentes en l'espèce de l'article 115 du CPP, relatif à la saisie des biens, sont exposées dans l'arrêt Uniya OOO et Belcourt Trading Company c. Russie (nos 4437/03 et 13290/03, § 242, 19 juin 2014).
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 475/08

  EILDERS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  For a summary of provisions relating to attachment of property in criminal proceedings, see Uniya OOO and Belcourt Trading Company v. Russia (nos. 4437/03 and 13290/03, § 242, 19 June 2014).
• EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 7506/17

  STEPANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Les autres dispositions pertinentes de l'article 115 du CPP sont exposées dans l'arrêt Uniya OOO et Belcourt Trading Company c. Russie (nos 4437/03 et 13290/03, § 242, 19 juin 2014).
• EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 1006/07

  AVIAKOMPANIYA A.T.I., ZAT v. UKRAINE

  In Uniya OOO and Belcourt Trading Company v. Russia (nos. 4437/03 and 13290/03, §§ 258-65, 19 June 2014), where one of the applicant companies was liquidated, the Government asked the Court to discontinue the examination of the case.