Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 20611/10 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,37345) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
TOGRUL c. BULGARIE
Violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Protection de la propriété (Article 1 al. 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Respect des biens;Article 1 al. 2 du Protocole n° 1 - Réglementer l'usage des biens);Violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Protection de la ...
Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
(Pressemitteilung)
Judgment Togrul v. Bulgaria - confiscation of money not declared to Bulgarian customs
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Pressemitteilung)
Arrêt Togrul c. Bulgarie - confiscation d'une somme d'argent non-déclarée à la douane
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
TOGRUL c. BULGARIE
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
[FRE]
Wird zitiert von ... (10) Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
Budweiser-Streit
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 20611/10
c. Portugal [GC], no 73049/01, § 62, CEDH 2007-I ; J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd et J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 44302/02, § 52, CEDH 2007-III ; Beyeler c. Italie [GC], no 33202/96, § 107, CEDH 2000-I ; Gasus Dosier - und Fördertechnik GmbH c. Pays-Bas, 23 février 1995, § 60, série A no 306-B ; AGOSI c. Royaume-Uni, 24 octobre 1986, §§ 51 et 52, série A no 108 ; Grifhorst c. France, no 28336/02, §§ 84-86, 26 février 2009, et Gabrić c. Croatie, no 9702/04, § 33, 5 février 2009. - EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 20611/10
c. Portugal [GC], no 73049/01, § 62, CEDH 2007-I ; J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd et J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 44302/02, § 52, CEDH 2007-III ; Beyeler c. Italie [GC], no 33202/96, § 107, CEDH 2000-I ; Gasus Dosier - und Fördertechnik GmbH c. Pays-Bas, 23 février 1995, § 60, série A no 306-B ; AGOSI c. Royaume-Uni, 24 octobre 1986, §§ 51 et 52, série A no 108 ; Grifhorst c. France, no 28336/02, §§ 84-86, 26 février 2009, et Gabrić c. Croatie, no 9702/04, § 33, 5 février 2009. - EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 30352/03
ISMAYILOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 20611/10
La Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle, dans pareille situation, la sanction doit correspondre à la gravité du manquement constaté, à savoir le manquement à l'obligation de déclaration, et non pas à la gravité d'un manquement présumé non avéré, tel que le blanchiment d'argent ou la fraude fiscale (Ismayilov c. Russie, no 30352/03, § 38, 6 novembre 2008, et Grifhorst, précité, § 102).
- EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 9702/04
GABRIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 20611/10
c. Portugal [GC], no 73049/01, § 62, CEDH 2007-I ; J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd et J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 44302/02, § 52, CEDH 2007-III ; Beyeler c. Italie [GC], no 33202/96, § 107, CEDH 2000-I ; Gasus Dosier - und Fördertechnik GmbH c. Pays-Bas, 23 février 1995, § 60, série A no 306-B ; AGOSI c. Royaume-Uni, 24 octobre 1986, §§ 51 et 52, série A no 108 ; Grifhorst c. France, no 28336/02, §§ 84-86, 26 février 2009, et Gabrić c. Croatie, no 9702/04, § 33, 5 février 2009. - EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 43492/11
BOLJEVIC AGAINST CROATIA AND 1 OTHER CASE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 20611/10
Les dispositions pertinentes en l'espèce du Règlement no 1889/05 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 26 octobre 2005 relatif aux contrôles de l'argent liquide entrant ou sortant de la Communauté ont été citées dans l'arrêt Boljević c. Croatie (no 43492/11, § 20, 31 janvier 2017). - EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 32130/03
PETYO PETKOV AGAINST BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 20611/10
Toutefois, il s'agit d'une mesure qui restreint temporairement l'usage des biens et qui, dès lors, pour répondre aux exigences de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1, doit être prévue par la législation interne, poursuivre un but légitime et être proportionnée au but poursuivi (Karamitrov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 53321/99, § 72, 10 janvier 2008, et Petyo Petkov c. Bulgarie, no 32130/03, § 102, 7 janvier 2010).
- EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 50705/11
TODOROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
In other cases, where the authorities had confiscated money which the applicants had failed to declare when crossing the border (even where its lawful origin had been established), the Court found the sanction disproportionately grave (see Grifhorst v. France, no. 28336/02, §§ 94-105, 26 February 2009; Gyrlyan v. Russia, no. 35943/15, §§ 24-31, 9 October 2018; and Togrul v. Bulgaria, no. 20611/10, §§ 42-46, 15 November 2018). - EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 53050/21
ZLATANOV v. BULGARIA
In September 2021 the applicant attempted to obtain the return of the seized items in the standard manner: by way of a request to the prosecutors in charge of the case in which the items had been seized, and then by way of a claim for judicial review of their refusal (see paragraphs 97-100 and 136 above, and compare Togrul v. Bulgaria, no. 20611/10, § 32, 15 November 2018). - EGMR, 17.09.2024 - 15887/15
YAYLALI v. SERBIA
The applicant's misconduct was classified as deliberate on the basis that he must have been aware of the declaration duty and had therefore wilfully accepted the consequences of his failure to comply with it (see paragraph 8 above; with regard to the presence or absence of intent to deceive the authorities, compare and contrast Sadocha v. Ukraine, no. 77508/11, §§ 29-33, 11 July 2019; Togrul v. Bulgaria, no. 20611/10, § 44, 15 November 2018; Gyrlyan, cited above, § 27; Ismayilov v. Russia, no. 30352/03, §§ 36-38, 6 November 2008; and Gabrić v. Croatia, no. 9702/04, §§ 38-39, 5 February 2009).
- EGMR, 07.10.2025 - 48725/12
PRENCA v. SERBIA and 7 other applications
While deeming that the measure of full or partial confiscation imposed an excessive individual burden on the applicants, the Court has on many occasions emphasised, among other factors, the lawful origin of the confiscated sums and the lack of any intent to deceive the authorities (see, among other authorities, Togrul v. Bulgaria, no. 20611/10, § 44, 15 November 2018; as well as above-cited cases of Ismayilov, § 36; Sadocha, §§ 29-33; Gabrić, § 37, and Gyrlyan, § 27). - EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 61233/12
KARAPETYAN v. GEORGIA
In this context, the Court recalls that in some cases concerning other Contracting States it has found confiscation measures of a similar type as that at issue in the present case to be disproportionate, and considered that they imposed an excessive individual burden on the applicant, taking into consideration, among other factors, the lawful origin of the confiscated sum, as demonstrated by appropriate evidence, and the fact that the intent to deceive the authorities had been lacking (see among other authorities, Sadocha, cited above, §§ 29-33; Togrul v. Bulgaria, no. 20611/10, § 44, 15 November 2018; Gyrlyan, cited above, § 27; and Ismayilov, cited above, § 36). - EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 50514/13
SAQUETTI IGLESIAS c. ESPAGNE
Par conséquent, la Cour estime que la saisie de la quasi-totalité de la somme découverte lors du contrôle douanier effectué en l'occurrence, sans que les autorités internes aient procédé à un examen de proportionnalité, s'oppose à ce que l'infraction soit considérée comme « mineure'au sens de l'article 2 du Protocole no 7 (voir, sous l'angle de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1, 1a conclusion de la Cour dans l'affaire Togrul c. Bulgarie, no 20611/10, § 45 in fine, 15 novembre 2018), et que, dès lors, l'exception au droit à un double degré de juridiction en matière d'infractions mineures, prévue par le paragraphe 2 de la disposition invoquée, n'est donc pas applicable dans les circonstances particulières de la présente affaire. - EGMR, 24.06.2025 - 69080/13
AKSÜNGÜR AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
While deeming that the measure of full or partial confiscation imposed an excessive individual burden on the applicants, the Court has on many occasions emphasised, among other factors, the lawful origin of the confiscated sums and the lack of any intent to deceive the authorities (see, among other authorities, Togrul v. Bulgaria, no. 20611/10, § 44, 15 November 2018; as well as above-cited cases of Ismayilov, § 36; Sadocha, §§ 29-33; Gabrić, § 37, and Gyrlyan, § 27). - EGMR, 23.03.2023 - 45230/15
TYMCHYSHENA v. UKRAINE
The Court further finds that the applicable rule is that concerning the control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Togrul v. Bulgaria, no. 20611/10, § 38, 15 November 2018). - EGMR, 25.11.2021 - 23612/20
ALVES DE OLIVEIRA c. FRANCE
La Cour rappelle que, selon une jurisprudence constante, pour être compatible avec l'article 1 du Protocole no 1, une ingérence dans le droit de propriété doit être mise en œuvre « dans les conditions prévues par la loi ", poursuivre un but d'utilité publique et être proportionnée à ce but, c'est-à-dire ménager un juste équilibre entre l'intérêt général et le droit de l'individu au respect de ses biens (Sporrong et Lönnroth c. Suède, 23 septembre 1982, § 69, série A no 52, Granitul S.A. c. Roumanie, no 22022/03, § 46, 22 mars 2011, et Togrul c. Bulgarie, no 20611/10, §§ 37-39, 15 novembre 2018). - EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 68504/11
NIKOLOV c. BULGARIE
La Cour doit donc établir si cette ingérence était « prévue par la loi ", si elle poursuivait un but légitime et si elle était proportionnée au but poursuivi (Togrul c. Bulgarie, no 20611/10, § 39, 15 novembre 2018).
dejure.org
Übersicht EGMR
Einloggen | Registrieren
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Externe Links öffnen jetzt in einem neuen Tab. Sie können dieses Verhalten auch auf Ihrer Einstellungsseite ändern.
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,36973) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
A.T. v. ESTONIA
No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for ...
Sonstiges
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15
- EGMR, 16.10.2019 - 23183/15
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10
Transnistrien
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15
The Court notes that in situations which concern the medical treatment of prisoners, the State authorities have, on the one hand, an obligation to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance to secure their health and well-being (see Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 178, ECHR 2016, and Khalvash v. Russia, no. 32917/13, § 55, 15 December 2015). - EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 4694/03
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15
The Court highlights that the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities (see Mustafa and Armağan Akın v. Turkey, no. 4694/03, § 20, 6 April 2010). - EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 56660/12
KORNEYKOVA AND KORNEYKOV v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15
Furthermore, the Court notes that in the instant case no health-related reasons could be ascertained that would cast doubt on the use of measures of restraint - the applicant was a young man without any particular health concerns which could have rendered the use of cuffing excessive or contraindicated (see paragraph 50 above; compare and contrast Korneykova and Korneykov v. Ukraine, no. 56660/12, §§ 112-113, 24 March 2016, and Avcı and Others v. Turkey, no. 70417/01, §§ 39-40, 27 June 2006).
- EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32917/13
KHALVASH v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15
The Court notes that in situations which concern the medical treatment of prisoners, the State authorities have, on the one hand, an obligation to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance to secure their health and well-being (see Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 178, ECHR 2016, and Khalvash v. Russia, no. 32917/13, § 55, 15 December 2015). - EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 40378/06
Y.Y. v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15
The protection of personal data, not least medical data, is of fundamental importance to a person's enjoyment of his or her right to respect for private and family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (see Y.Y. v. Russia, no. 40378/06, § 38, 23 February 2016). - EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 21780/07
ALEKSEJEVA v. LATVIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15
On the other hand, the States have an obligation under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention and that this, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including such ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see Đurđević v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, § 102, ECHR 2011 (extracts), and Aleksejeva v. Latvia, no. 21780/07, § 34, 3 July 2012). - EGMR, 30.04.2002 - 45837/99
KLEUVER v. NORWAY
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15
Against that background, the Court finds that the security measures were directly linked to the applicant's specific behaviour and, as such, did not exceed what could be reasonably considered necessary (see Kleuver v. Norway (dec.), no. 45837/99, ECHR, 30 April 2002, where - in the context of Article 8 of the Convention - cuffing and being escorted was considered to be warranted by the risk of escape; compare and contrast Filiz Uyan, cited above, § 32, and Duval, cited above, § 50, where a violation of Article 3 was found as the authorities had not demonstrated that the use of cuffing and the presence of prison officers had been adapted to the actual security needs and the risk posed by the prisoner). - EGMR, 26.05.2011 - 19868/08
[FRE]
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15
In this regard, it is important to consider, for instance, the danger of the person's absconding or causing injury or damage (see Filiz Uyan v. Turkey, no. 7496/03, § 30, 8 January 2009; see also Raninen v. Finland, 16 December 1997, § 56, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII) and the particular circumstances of a transfer to hospital for medical treatment (see Duval v. France, no. 19868/08, § 49, 26 May 2011, and Paradysz v. France, no. 17020/05, § 88, 29 October 2009). - EKMR, 02.03.1994 - 21780/93
T.V. c. FINLANDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15
Nor can the obligation to wear prison clothing be considered a disproportionate interference with the applicant's private life (see T.V. v. Finland, no. 21780/93, Commission decision of 2 March 1994, unreported).
dejure.org
Übersicht EGMR
Einloggen | Registrieren
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Externe Links öffnen jetzt in einem neuen Tab. Sie können dieses Verhalten auch auf Ihrer Einstellungsseite ändern.