Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

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

  No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

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

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (17)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  The Court has recognised the wide margin of appreciation of the States concerning the measures taken in the sphere of environmental protection from the standpoint of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 44, Series A no. 172; Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1) (18 February 1991, § 48, Series A no. 192; Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222; and Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, §§ 97, 98 and 100, ECHR 2003-VIII).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  The Court has recognised the wide margin of appreciation of the States concerning the measures taken in the sphere of environmental protection from the standpoint of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 44, Series A no. 172; Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1) (18 February 1991, § 48, Series A no. 192; Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222; and Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, §§ 97, 98 and 100, ECHR 2003-VIII).
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  The Court has recognised the wide margin of appreciation of the States concerning the measures taken in the sphere of environmental protection from the standpoint of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 44, Series A no. 172; Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1) (18 February 1991, § 48, Series A no. 192; Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222; and Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, §§ 97, 98 and 100, ECHR 2003-VIII).

• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 30352/03

  ISMAYILOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  Furthermore, unlike cases in which the cumulative effect of a fine and a confiscation measure was found be a disproportionate interference with Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 (see, for example, Ismayilov v. Russia, no. 30352/03, §§ 36-37, 6 November 2008 and Gabrić v. Croatia, no. 9702/04, § 37, 5 February 2009), the legislation in the present case did not provide for confiscation of an amount unrelated to the severity of the crime.
• EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 9702/04

  GABRIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  Furthermore, unlike cases in which the cumulative effect of a fine and a confiscation measure was found be a disproportionate interference with Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 (see, for example, Ismayilov v. Russia, no. 30352/03, §§ 36-37, 6 November 2008 and Gabrić v. Croatia, no. 9702/04, § 37, 5 February 2009), the legislation in the present case did not provide for confiscation of an amount unrelated to the severity of the crime.
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  Chassagnou u.a. ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  The concern to achieve a "fair balance" between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights is reflected in the structure of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a whole and entails the need for a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth, cited above, § 69; and Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 75, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see, among other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98), which reiterates in part the principles laid down by the Court in Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden (23 September 1982, § 61, Series A no. 52).
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  The Court reiterates its constant approach that a confiscation measure, even though it involves the deprivation of possessions, constitutes nevertheless control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A; AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 34, Series A no. 108 and Silickienė v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, § 62, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 20496/02

  SILICKIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  The Court reiterates its constant approach that a confiscation measure, even though it involves the deprivation of possessions, constitutes nevertheless control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A; AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 34, Series A no. 108 and Silickienė v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, § 62, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 26429/07

  The Court reiterates its constant approach that a confiscation measure, even though it involves the deprivation of possessions, constitutes nevertheless control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A; AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 34, Series A no. 108 and Silickienė v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, § 62, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 21861/03

  HAMER v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 04.09.2001 - 52439/99

  RIELA ET AUTRES contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 35178/97
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 29309/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 21156/93

  G.J. v. LUXEMBOURG
• EKMR, 07.09.1990 - 12259/86

  DYRWOLD v. SWEDEN

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 44460/16

  O'SULLIVAN MC CARTHY MUSSEL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. IRELAND

  Public authorities assume a responsibility which should in practice result in their intervention at the appropriate time to ensure that the statutory provisions enacted with the purpose of protecting the environment are not entirely ineffective (see, for example, S.C. Fiercolect Impex S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 26429/07, § 65, 13 December 2016).
• 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).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 23.11.2023 - C-351/22

  Generalanwältin Capeta: Der Gerichtshof ist nicht dafür zuständig, allgemeine …

  Insbesondere bestätigte der EGMR die Verhängung einer Geldbuße und einer Einziehungsmaßnahme unter Umständen, in denen das klagende Unternehmen seine Tätigkeiten ohne die nach nationalem Recht erforderlichen Genehmigungen ausgeübt hatte, vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 24. April 2017, S.C. Fiercolect Impex S.R.L./Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2016:1213JUD002642907, insbesondere §§ 62 bis 73).
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 47911/15

  TELBIS AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  The Court's constant approach in cases involving confiscation of assets deemed by the domestic courts to have been unlawfully acquired and when the confiscation was intended to prevent the use of these assets to the detriment of the community has been that, confiscation constitutes control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see S.C. Fiercolect Impex S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 26429/07, § 57, 13 December 2016; and Silickienė, cited above, § 62).
• EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10

  TIMAKOV AND OOO ID RUBEZH v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  In view of the fact that its only shareholders (Mr Timakov and Mr Leonov) together expressed their interest in continuing the proceedings before the Court in the applicant company's stead (see paragraph 17 above), there is virtually no risk of any differences of opinion arising among shareholders or between shareholders and the applicant company's board of directors as to whether an infringement of Convention rights actually occurred or to the most appropriate way of reacting to such an infringement (compare S.C. Fiercolect Impex S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 26429/07, § 39, 13 December 2016, and Euromak Metal Doo v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 68039/14, §§ 32-33, 14 June 2018).