Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 27.03.2019 - 16903/03 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,7049) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DENISOVA ET MOISEYEVA CONTRE LA RUSSIE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DENISOVA AND MOISEYEVA AGAINST RUSSIA
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 16903/03
- EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
- EGMR, 27.03.2019 - 16903/03
Wird zitiert von ... (8)
- EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 27879/13
BOKOVA c. RUSSIE
Or, en l'espèce, la requérante n'a eu qu'un statut de témoin dans la procédure pénale concernant son mari et elle n'a pas joui de droits procéduraux qui lui auraient permis de combattre la thèse selon laquelle la maison avait été construite et aménagée grâce à des fonds d'origine illicite apportés par son mari (comparer avec Denisova et Moiseyeva c. Russie, no 16903/03, § 60, 1er avril 2010).Il s'ensuit qu'aucune des juridictions internes n'a examiné la question du montant des fonds de provenance illicite investis dans la maison ni offert à la requérante une possibilité adéquate d'exposer sa cause et de défendre ses droits à l'égard d'une part de ce bien (voir, mutatis mutandis, Denisova et Moiseyeva c. Russie, no 16903/03, §§ 60-64, 1er avril 2010, ainsi que Rummi c. Estonie, no 63362/09, §§ 83-85 et 108, 15 janvier 2015).
Dans ces circonstances, la Cour estime qu'un tel réexamen constitue en l'occurrence le moyen le plus approprié pour remédier à la violation constatée (voir également, mutatis mutandis, Denisova et Moiseyeva c. Russie (satisfaction équitable), no 16903/03, § 14, 14 juin 2011, Vulakh et autres c. Russie, no 33468/03, § 54, 10 janvier 2012, Malikov et Oshchepkov c. Russie (comité), no 42981/06, § 39, 12 novembre 2015).
- EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 3503/08
ÜNSPED PAKET SERVISI SAN. VE TIC. A.S. v. BULGARIA
In ascertaining whether the above condition has been satisfied, the Court must take a comprehensive view of the applicable procedures (see AGOSI, cited above, § 55, Series A no. 108; Bowler International Unit v. France, no. 1946/06, §§ 44-45, 23 July 2009; Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV; Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, § 59, 1 April 2010). - EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 57404/08
LAVRECHOV v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
La Cour considère par ailleurs que la confiscation poursuivait le but légitime consistant à garantir le bon déroulement de la procédure pénale et, plus globalement, à combattre et prévenir les infractions pénales, ce qui relève indéniablement de l'intérêt général prévu à l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (Yildirim, décision précitée, et Denisova et Moiseyeva c. Russie, no 16903/03, § 58, 1er avril 2010).
- EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 63362/09
RUMMI v. ESTONIA
Thus, a confiscation order in respect of criminally acquired property operates in the general interest as a deterrent to those considering engaging in criminal activities, and also guarantees that crime does not pay (see Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, § 58, 1 April 2010, with further references to Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 52, ECHR 2001-VII, and Dassa Foundation and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 696/05, 10 July 2007). - EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03
Verletzung der Unschuldsvermutung eines Verstorbenen durch gerichtliche …
46. The Court observes at the outset that, by contrast with the situation obtaining in certain previous cases (see, for instance, Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, 1 April 2010; Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 52, ECHR 2001-VII; and Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281"A), the present case does not contain any facts or evidence which could lead the Court to conclude that it concerned confiscation of money or assets obtained through illegal activities or paid for with the proceeds of crime. - EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 12951/11
VEITS v. ESTONIA
Thus, a confiscation order in respect of criminally acquired property operates in the general interest as a deterrent to those considering engaging in criminal activities, and also guarantees that crime does not pay (see Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, § 58, 1 April 2010, with further references to Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 52, ECHR 2001-VII, and Dassa Foundation and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 696/05, 10 July 2007). - EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 34129/03
MICROINTELECT OOD v. BULGARIA
In ascertaining whether this condition has been satisfied, the Court must take a comprehensive view of the applicable procedures (see AGOSI, cited above, § 55; Bowler International Unit, cited above, §§ 44-45; Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV; and Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, § 59, 1 April 2010). - EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 475/08
EILDERS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Court further reiterates that, although the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 contains no explicit procedural provisions, it has been its constant requirement that the domestic proceedings afford the aggrieved individual a reasonable opportunity of putting his or her case to the responsible authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging the measures interfering with the rights guaranteed by this provision (see Rummi v. Estonia, no. 63362/09, § 104, 15 January 2015; Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, § 59, 1 April 2010; Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV; and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 108).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56857) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DENISOVA AND MOISEYEVA v. RUSSIA
(englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 16903/03
- EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
- EGMR, 27.03.2019 - 16903/03
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97
COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
In particular, if one or more heads of damage cannot be calculated precisely or if the distinction between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage proves difficult, the Court may decide to make a global assessment (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 4171/04
GRIDIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006). - EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00
Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
It should be recalled that the Court has frequently rejected Governments" submissions to the effect that the applicant can ask for compensation in domestic courts in respect of the violation found by the Court (see Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 40, Series A no. 330-B; De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), 10 March 1972, § 15-16, Series A no. 14; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 129, ECHR 2006-IX; and a/s Diena and Ozolins v. Latvia, no. 16657/03, § 92, 12 July 2007, and the references cited therein).
- EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02
GARABAYEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006). - EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 16657/03
A/S DIENA ET OZOLINS c. LETTONIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
It should be recalled that the Court has frequently rejected Governments" submissions to the effect that the applicant can ask for compensation in domestic courts in respect of the violation found by the Court (see Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 40, Series A no. 330-B; De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), 10 March 1972, § 15-16, Series A no. 14; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 129, ECHR 2006-IX; and a/s Diena and Ozolins v. Latvia, no. 16657/03, § 92, 12 July 2007, and the references cited therein). - EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 30422/03
PSHENICHNYY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006). - EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 33470/03
ANTIPENKOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006). - EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 302/02
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OF MOSCOW AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
However, it is noted that, pursuant to the Russian Constitutional Court's judgment no. 4-P of 26 February 2010, the Court's judgments are binding on Russia and a finding of a violation of the Convention or its Protocols by the Court is a ground for reopening civil proceedings under Article 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure and review of the domestic judgments in the light of the Convention principles established by the Court (see Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, no. 302/02, § 206, ECHR 2010-... (extracts)). - EGMR, 22.06.1972 - 2614/65
RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA (ARTICLE 50)
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
A "necessity" to apply Article 41 exists "once a respondent government refuses the applicant reparation to which he considers he is entitled" (see Ringeisen v. Austria (Article 50), 22 June 1972, § 22, Series A no. 15).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 16903/03 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63382) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DENISOVA AND MOISEYEVA v. RUSSIA
Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of P1-1 Just satisfaction reserved (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 16903/03
- EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
- EGMR, 27.03.2019 - 16903/03
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98
Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 16903/03
The Court reiterates that the concept of "possessions" in the first part of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has an autonomous meaning which is not limited to ownership of physical goods and is independent from the formal classification in domestic law: the concept of "possessions" is not limited to "existing possessions" but may also cover assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he has at least a reasonable and "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right or a proprietary interest (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 124, ECHR 2004-XII, and Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII). - EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95
JOKELA v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 16903/03
In ascertaining whether this condition has been satisfied, a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable procedures (see Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV, and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, § 55). - EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
Budweiser-Streit
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 16903/03
Where the proprietary interest is in the nature of a claim it may be regarded as an "asset" only where it has a sufficient basis in national law, for example where there is settled case-law of the domestic courts confirming it (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 52, ECHR 2004-IX; Draon v. France [GC], no. 1513/03, § 68, 6 October 2005; Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 65, 11 January 2007).
- EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 696/05
DASSA FOUNDATION AND OTHERS v. LIECHTENSTEIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 16903/03
Thus, the making of a confiscation order in respect of criminally acquired property operates in the general interest as a deterrent to those considering engaging in criminal activities and also guarantees that crime does not pay (compare Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 52, ECHR 2001-VII, and Dassa Foundation and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 696/05, 10 July 2007). - EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88
HENTRICH v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 16903/03
In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the applicants "bore an individual and excessive burden" which could have been rendered legitimate only if they had had the opportunity to challenge effectively the confiscation measure imposed in the criminal proceedings to which they were not parties; however, that opportunity was denied them in the subsequent civil proceedings and therefore the "fair balance which should be struck between the protection of the right of property and the requirements of the general interest" was upset (compare Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, § 49). - EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87
RAIMONDO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 16903/03
The Court considers that the confiscation measures in criminal proceedings pursue a general interest of the community because the forfeiture of money or assets obtained through illegal activities or paid for with the proceeds from crime is a necessary and effective means of combating criminal activities (see Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 17, § 30). - EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80
AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 16903/03
In ascertaining whether this condition has been satisfied, a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable procedures (see Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV, and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, § 55).
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.02.2021 - C-579/19
Food Standards Agency
14 Die Klägerinnen verweisen auf die Urteile des EGMR vom 1. April 2010, Denisova und Moiseyeva/Russland (CE:ECHR:2010:0401JUD001690303), und vom 28. Juni 2018, G.I.E.M. u. a./Italien (CE:ECHR:2018:0628JUD000182806).