Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

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

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Abuse of the right of application;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 7 - No punishment ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  G.I.E.M. S.R.L. ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Exception préliminaire rejetée (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité;(Art. 35-3-a) Requête abusive;Exception préliminaire rejetée (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité;(Art. 35-1) Épuisement des voies de recours internes;Violation de l'article 7 - Pas de peine sans ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  G.I.E.M. S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ITALY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Abuse of the right of application;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 7 - No punishment ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Besprechungen u.ä.

• zis-online.com (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Sud Fondi, Varvara und G.I.E.M.: Die Entscheidungen des EGMR zu einer italienischen Non-Conviction-Based-Confiscation als Indikator für die Konventionswidrigkeit des deutschen § 76a Abs. 4 StGB? (Christian Schörner; ZIS 2019, 144)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  G.I.E.M s.r.l v. Italy

  [02.09.2015]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 1828/06, 34163/07, 19029/11
• EGMR, 12.07.2023 - 1828/06

Wird zitiert von ... (31)Neu Zitiert selbst (34)

• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 1828/06

  The Court notes that the present case can be distinguished from that of AGOSI v. the United Kingdom (24 October 1986, Series A no. 108), where confiscation was ordered in respect of property that was the subject-matter of an offence (objectum sceleris), following the conviction of the persons charged, for in the present case the confiscation was ordered following acquittal.

  [12] See AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 66, Series A no. 108, and CM v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, 26 June 2001.

  [153] It seems to me that research into the Court's case-law on the modalities of penalties (such as confiscation) imposed in the absence of a criminal conviction would at least show the existence of four groups of cases: confiscation orders and similar measures in the framework of criminal proceedings imposed on third parties (for example, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, § 66; and Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, §§ 29-48, Series A no. 316-A); confiscation orders and similar measures in the absence of criminal proceedings, including preventive measures against persons whose property had been presumed to be of unlawful origin (for example, Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; and Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002); imposition by an administrative judge of an administrative penalty despite an acquittal or a discontinuance decision in criminal proceedings (for example, Vanjak v. Croatia, no. 29889/04, §§ 69-72, 14 January 2010; Sikic v. Croatia, no. 9143/08, §§ 54-56, 15 July 2010; and Kapetanios and Others v. Greece, nos. 3453/12 and 2 others, § 88, 30 April 2015); and imposition by a criminal court of confiscation orders and similar measures despite an acquittal or a discontinuance decision in criminal proceedings (for example, Saliba v. Malta (dec.), no. 4251/02, 23 November 2004; Geerings v. the Netherlands, no. 30810/03, 1 March 2007; and Paraponiaris, cited above).

• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 1828/06

  For the same reason the present case can be distinguished from C.M. v. France ((dec.), no. 28078/95, ECHR 2001-VII) or Air Canada v. the United Kingdom (5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A), in which the confiscation, ordered after the conviction of the accused, concerned property which was the instrumentum sceleris and was in the possession of third parties.

  [16] see AGOSI, cited above, § 54, and Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, §§ 29-48, Series A no. 316-A.

  [153] It seems to me that research into the Court's case-law on the modalities of penalties (such as confiscation) imposed in the absence of a criminal conviction would at least show the existence of four groups of cases: confiscation orders and similar measures in the framework of criminal proceedings imposed on third parties (for example, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, § 66; and Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, §§ 29-48, Series A no. 316-A); confiscation orders and similar measures in the absence of criminal proceedings, including preventive measures against persons whose property had been presumed to be of unlawful origin (for example, Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; and Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002); imposition by an administrative judge of an administrative penalty despite an acquittal or a discontinuance decision in criminal proceedings (for example, Vanjak v. Croatia, no. 29889/04, §§ 69-72, 14 January 2010; Sikic v. Croatia, no. 9143/08, §§ 54-56, 15 July 2010; and Kapetanios and Others v. Greece, nos. 3453/12 and 2 others, § 88, 30 April 2015); and imposition by a criminal court of confiscation orders and similar measures despite an acquittal or a discontinuance decision in criminal proceedings (for example, Saliba v. Malta (dec.), no. 4251/02, 23 November 2004; Geerings v. the Netherlands, no. 30810/03, 1 March 2007; and Paraponiaris, cited above).

• EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90

  WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 1828/06

  To render the protection offered by this Article effective, the Court must remain free to go behind appearances and assess for itself whether a particular measure amounts in substance to a "penalty" within the meaning of this provision (see Welch v. the United Kingdom, 9 February 1995, § 27, Series A no. 307-A, and Jamil v. France, 8 June 1995, § 30, Series A no. 317-B).

  In the first case cited above, the Court held that the confiscation constituted a penalty for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Phillips, cited above, § 51, and, mutatis mutandis, Welch v. the United Kingdom, 9 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 307-A), whereas in the other cases it took the view that it was a matter of control of the use of property.

  But when it comes to the assessment of whether confiscation is a "penalty" within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention, "the severity of the measure... is not in itself decisive, since many non-penal measures of a preventive nature may, just as measures which must be classified as a penalty, have a substantial impact on the person concerned" (see Bergmann v. Germany, no. 23279/14, § 150, 7 January 2016; see also, among other authorities, Welch v. the United Kingdom, 9 February 1995, § 32, Series A no. 307-A; Van der Velden v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 29514/05, ECHR 2006-XV; M. v. Germany, no. 19359/04, § 120, ECHR 2009; and Del Río Prada, cited above, § 82).

 
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

  YILDIRIM contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 1828/06

  It is only more rarely that the Court has found this aspect decisive in declaring Article 7 inapplicable (see Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV, and Bowler International Unit v. France, no. 1946/06, § 67, 23 July 2009).

  [14] Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV.

• EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 53972/00

  MAGNUSSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 1828/06

  In such cases, the Court has had "particular regard to the special features of proceedings relating to sexual abuse, especially where it involves minors" at the point of evaluating compliance with the right to challenge witnesses enshrined in Article 6 § 3 (d) (see Magnusson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 53972/00, see also S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, 2 July 2002, §§ 47-53).
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 1828/06

  34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 49, ECHR 2001-II; and Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, § 93, ECHR 2005-V.
• EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 28078/95

  C.M. c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 1828/06

  For the same reason the present case can be distinguished from C.M. v. France ((dec.), no. 28078/95, ECHR 2001-VII) or Air Canada v. the United Kingdom (5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A), in which the confiscation, ordered after the conviction of the accused, concerned property which was the instrumentum sceleris and was in the possession of third parties.
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 34356/06

  Immunität gilt auch bei Folter

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 1828/06

  [161] See Naït-Liman v. Switzerland [GC], no. 51357/07, 15 March 2018, on the denial of forum of necessity or universal civil jurisdiction to a refugee who had seized a Swiss court with a civil claim for damages resulting from torture allegedly suffered in a third State, Tunisia; as well as Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI, and Jones and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 34356/06 and no. 40528/06, 14 January 2014, respectively on the grant of State immunity and of immunity to foreign State officials concerning civil claims for torture.
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 25816/09

  GIAVI c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 1828/06

  v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 83, ECHR 2007-I; J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, § 57, ECHR 2007-III; Zafranas v. Greece, no. 4056/08, § 36, 4 October 2011; and Giavi v. Greece, no. 25816/09, § 44, 3 October 2013; see also, mutatis mutandis, Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 123, 20 June 2002, and Grande Stevens and Others, cited above, § 188).
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 4056/08

  ZAFRANAS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 1828/06

  v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 83, ECHR 2007-I; J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, § 57, ECHR 2007-III; Zafranas v. Greece, no. 4056/08, § 36, 4 October 2011; and Giavi v. Greece, no. 25816/09, § 44, 3 October 2013; see also, mutatis mutandis, Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 123, 20 June 2002, and Grande Stevens and Others, cited above, § 188).
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 29514/05

  VAN DER VELDEN c. PAYS-BAS
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 52024/99

  ARCURI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

  Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland
• EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 15476/09

  DADDI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

  Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 49570/11

  GÁLL v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 62902/00

  ZOLLMANN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 39627/05

  TALIADOROU AND STYLIANOU v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 18.01.2001 - 27238/95

  CHAPMAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 07.01.2016 - 23279/14

  Therapieunterbringung (Sicherungsverwahrung) bei schwerer psychischer Störung …
• EGMR, 04.09.2001 - 52439/99

  RIELA ET AUTRES contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 42875/10

  BERLAND c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 15917/89

  JAMIL v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 23.07.2002 - 34619/97

  JANOSEVIC c. SUEDE
• EGMR, 07.10.1988 - 10519/83

  SALABIAKU c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 70074/01

  VALICO S.R.L. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 76959/11

  SOCIÉTÉ OXYGÈNE PLUS c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09

  ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

• BVerfG, 10.02.2021 - 2 BvL 8/19

  Rückwirkende strafrechtliche Vermögensabschöpfung verfassungsgemäß

  a) Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte bestimmt den Begriff der Strafe im Sinne von Art. 7 Abs. 1 EMRK autonom (vgl. EGMR, Welch v. The United Kingdom, Urteil vom 9. Februar 1995, Nr. 17440/90, § 27; Bergmann v. Germany, Urteil vom 7. Januar 2016, Nr. 23279/14, § 150; EGMR (GK), G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy, Urteil vom 28. Juni 2018, Nr. 1828/06 and 2 others, § 210; Ilnseher v. Germany, Urteil vom 4. Dezember 2018, Nr. 10211/12 and 27505/14, § 203; EGMR, Balsamo v. San Marino, Urteil vom 8. Oktober 2019, Nr. 20319/17 and 21414/17, § 59).

  Weitere relevante Faktoren sind die Art und der Zweck der Maßnahme, ihre Charakterisierung nach innerstaatlichem Recht, die mit ihrer Schaffung und Durchführung verbundenen Verfahren und ihre Schwere (vgl. EGMR, Welch v. The United Kingdom, Urteil vom 9. Februar 1995, Nr. 17440/90, § 28; Vannucci v. San Marino, Entscheidung vom 28. März 2017, Nr. 33898/15, § 40; EGMR (GK), G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy, Urteil vom 28. Juni 2018, Nr. 1828/06 and 2 others, § 211; EGMR, Balsamo v. San Marino, Urteil vom 8. Oktober 2019, Nr. 20319/17 and 21414/17, § 59; vgl. entsprechend zum Strafbegriff außerhalb des Bereichs der vermögensabschöpfenden Maßnahmen EGMR (GK), Ilnseher v. Germany, Urteil vom 4. Dezember 2018, Nr. 10211/12 and 27505/14, § 203).

  aa) Zentrale Kriterien sind nach der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs die Art und der Zweck der Maßnahme, für deren Bestimmung auch die nationale Rechtsprechung und Dogmatik heranzuziehen sind (vgl. EGMR (GK), G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy, Urteil vom 28. Juni 2018, Nr. 1828/06 and 2 others, §§ 222-226; EGMR, Balsamo v. San Marino, Urteil vom 8. Oktober 2019, Nr. 20319/17 and 21414/17, § 62), während die Anknüpfung an eine strafrechtliche Verurteilung, die Entscheidung durch ein Strafgericht und die Schwere der Maßnahme für sich allein nicht zu einem bestimmten Auslegungsergebnis zwingen.

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 09.06.2022 - C-203/21

  DELTA STROY 2003

  41 EGMR, 28. Juni 2018, G.I.E.M. S.r.l. u. a./Italien, CE:ECHR:2018:0628JUD000182806, § 251.

  42 EGMR, 28. Juni 2018, G.I.E.M. S.r.l. u. a./Italien, CE:ECHR:2018:0628JUD000182806, §§ 255 bis 261.

  43 EGMR, 28. Juni 2018, G.I.E.M. S.r.l. u. a./Italien, CE:ECHR:2018:0628JUD000182806, §§ 243 und 244.

  48 EGMR, 28. Juni 2018, G.I.E.M. S.r.l. u. a./Italien, CE:ECHR:2018:0628JUD000182806, § 243 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung.

• EuGH, 10.11.2022 - C-203/21

  DELTA STROY 2003

  Wie das vorlegende Gericht selbst ausgeführt hat, hat der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte entschieden, dass Art. 7 EMRK die Verhängung einer strafrechtlichen Sanktion gegen eine Person ausschließt, wenn nicht ihre persönliche strafrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit zuvor festgestellt und erklärt wurde, da andernfalls auch die von Art. 6 Abs. 2 EMRK garantierte Unschuldsvermutung verletzt würde (EGMR, Urteil vom 28. Juni 2018, G.I.E.M. s.r.l. u. a./Italien, CE:ECHR:2018:0628JUD000182806, § 251).

  Diese werden überschritten, wenn eine Vermutung es dem Einzelnen unmöglich macht, sich von den gegen ihn erhobenen Vorwürfen zu entlasten, und ihn damit des Schutzes von Art. 6 Abs. 2 EMRK beraubt (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, Urteil vom 28. Juni 2018, G.I.E.M. s.r.l. u. a./Italien, CE:ECHR:2018:0628JUD000182806, § 243 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).

 
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 04.05.2023 - C-683/21

  Nacionalinis visuomenes sveikatos centras

  44 Vgl. Urteil des EGMR (Große Kammer) vom 28. Juni 2018, GIEM s.r.l. u. a./Italien (CE:ECHR:2018:0628JUD000182806, §§ 242 und 243).
• EuGH, 22.06.2023 - C-513/21

  DI/ EZB - Rechtsmittel - Öffentlicher Dienst - Personal der Europäischen …

  Wie auch das Gericht in Rn. 123 des angefochtenen Urteils ausgeführt hat, soll die Unschuldsvermutung u. a. verhindern, dass Personen, deren strafrechtliche Verfolgung eingestellt worden ist, behördlich so behandelt werden, als hätten sie die Straftat, die ihnen zur Last gelegt worden war, tatsächlich begangen (EGMR, 28. Juni 2018, G.I.E.M. S.R.L. u. a./Italien, CE:ECHR:2018:0628JUD000182806, § 314).
• EuG, 09.06.2021 - T-514/19

  DI/ EZB

  Nach der Rechtsprechung des EGMR soll die Unschuldsvermutung u. a. verhindern, dass Einzelpersonen, deren strafrechtliche Verfolgung eingestellt worden ist, von den Trägern öffentlicher Gewalt so behandelt werden, als hätten sie die Straftat, die ihnen zur Last gelegt worden war, tatsächlich begangen (EGMR, 28. Juni 2018, G.I.E.M. S.R.L. u. a./Italien, CE:ECHR:2018:0628JUD000182806, § 314).
• EGMR, 03.06.2021 - 48431/18

  BUSUTTIL v. MALTA

  The Court has previously found that the Contracting States may, in principle and under certain conditions, penalise a simple or objective fact as such, irrespective of whether it results from criminal intent or from negligence (see G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, § 243, 28 June 2018; Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, § 100, ECHR 2002-VII, and Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A, § 27).

  "The Court has previously found that the Contracting States may, in principle and under certain conditions, penalise a simple or objective fact as such, irrespective of whether it results from criminal intent or from negligence (see G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, § 243, 28 June 2018; Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, § 100, ECHR 2002-VII; and Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A, § 27).".

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 20.10.2022 - C-412/21

  Dual Prod - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Verbrauchsteuer - Richtlinie …

  40 Vgl. entsprechend im Zusammenhang mit strafrechtlichen Sanktionen, die von einer Verwaltungsbehörde verhängt werden, EGMR, Urteil vom 28. Juni 2018, G.I.E.M. S.r.l. u. a./Italien (CE:ECHR:2018:0628JUD000182806, § 254 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).
• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 50705/11

  TODOROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others, in finding that the interference was not reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realised, the Court highlighted the following factors: the possibility of less restrictive alternative measures, in the specific case demolition of structures that were incompatible with the relevant regulations or the annulment of the development plan rather than confiscation; the unlimited nature of the sanction, as it affected both developed and undeveloped land, and even areas belonging to third parties; and the degree of culpability or negligence on the part of the applicants or, at the very least, the relationship between their conduct and the offence in question (see G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, § 301, 28 June 2018).
• 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).
• EGMR, 19.09.2023 - 64144/14

  COSTA SANTOS c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 38770/17

  MIFSUD AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 17.03.2020 - 29026/06

  BESHIRI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 74017/17

  MARTINS PEREIRA PENEDOS c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 07.11.2019 - 32644/09

  APOSTOLOVI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 73911/16

  LARRAÑAGA ARANDO AND OTHERS v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 30.05.2023 - 45066/17

  MESIC v. CROATIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 04.04.2023 - 29943/18

  GASHI AND GINA v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 44612/13

  GEORGOULEAS AND NESTORAS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 75529/16

  MARTÍNEZ AGIRRE AND OTHERS v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 31816/08

  STIRMANOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 27.09.2022 - 60457/16

  TEMESAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 58176/18

  GODLEVSKAYA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 26.02.2019 - 22398/10

  TUREX LTD v. GEORGIA
• EGMR - 4760/17 (anhängig)

  ARBE LOGISTICS BVBA c. BELGIQUE et 7 autres affaires
• EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 7308/12

  MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 52464/15

  AGAPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 29962/18

  MALYGINA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 16390/17

  LASHUN c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 13290/11

  SVIT ROZVAG, TOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 47604/13 (anhängig)

  AROUTSIDIS c. GRÈCE