Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08, 29737/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,53592
EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08, 29737/08 (https://dejure.org/2013,53592)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.12.2013 - 29426/08, 29737/08 (https://dejure.org/2013,53592)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Dezember 2013 - 29426/08, 29737/08 (https://dejure.org/2013,53592)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,53592) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (33)Zitiert selbst (13)

  • EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

    CASTELLS v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08
    As regards the Government's argument that the applicant companies in their constitutional complaints had not relied on the provision of the Constitution guaranteeing the right of ownership or on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court reiterates that in order to comply with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention it is not necessary for the Convention right to be explicitly raised at the domestic level as long as the same complaint, which is later submitted to the Court, was raised in domestic proceedings at least "in substance" (see, for example, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 236; Ahmet Sadık v. Greece, 15 November 1996, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; and Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 45, Series A no. 104).
  • EGMR, 28.08.1986 - 9228/80
    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08
    As regards the Government's argument that the applicant companies in their constitutional complaints had not relied on the provision of the Constitution guaranteeing the right of ownership or on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court reiterates that in order to comply with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention it is not necessary for the Convention right to be explicitly raised at the domestic level as long as the same complaint, which is later submitted to the Court, was raised in domestic proceedings at least "in substance" (see, for example, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 236; Ahmet Sadık v. Greece, 15 November 1996, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; and Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 45, Series A no. 104).
  • EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80
    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08
    However, it is important to note that the Court has consistently held that confiscation measures resulting in deprivation of property of third persons, different from the accused, entail determination of those persons" "civil rights and obligations" rather than determination of "a criminal charge" against them (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, §§ 64-66, Series A no. 108; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, §§ 52-56, Series A no. 316-A; Arcuri v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII; and Silickiene, cited above, §§ 45-46).
  • EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 20496/02

    SILICKIENE v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08
    Relying on the Court's judgment in the case of Silickiene v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, 10 April 2012), the Government submitted that even though the applicant companies had not formally been the parties to the above administrative offence proceedings, their rights in those proceedings had been adequately protected.
  • EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

    AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08
    However, it is important to note that the Court has consistently held that confiscation measures resulting in deprivation of property of third persons, different from the accused, entail determination of those persons" "civil rights and obligations" rather than determination of "a criminal charge" against them (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, §§ 64-66, Series A no. 108; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, §§ 52-56, Series A no. 316-A; Arcuri v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII; and Silickiene, cited above, §§ 45-46).
  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76
    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08
    However, as the Court's case-law bears out (see paragraph 34 above), the mere fact that an applicant has submitted his or her case to the various competent courts does not itself constitute compliance with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as even in those jurisdictions where the domestic courts are able, or even obliged to examine the case of their own motion applicants are not dispensed from raising before them the complaint subsequently made to the Court (see, for example, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 39, Series A no. 40; Dalipi v. Greece (dec.), no. 51588/08, § 20, 26 June 2012; and TrÅ«ps v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58497/08, 20 November 2012).
  • EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 52024/99

    ARCURI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08
    However, it is important to note that the Court has consistently held that confiscation measures resulting in deprivation of property of third persons, different from the accused, entail determination of those persons" "civil rights and obligations" rather than determination of "a criminal charge" against them (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, §§ 64-66, Series A no. 108; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, §§ 52-56, Series A no. 316-A; Arcuri v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII; and Silickiene, cited above, §§ 45-46).
  • EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 57655/08

    SUHADOLC v. SLOVENIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08
    In particular, in the present case the issues pertinent to the confiscation of the applicant companies" yachts were purely legal and did not require the hearing of witnesses or the taking of other oral evidence (see, for example, Saccoccia v. Austria, no. 69917/01, §§ 77-80, 18 December 2008 and, a fortiori, Suhadolc v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 57655/08, 17 May 2011).
  • EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 3572/06

    PAULIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08
    In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant companies did not properly exhaust domestic remedies and thus did not provide the national authorities with the opportunity, which is in principle intended to be afforded to Contracting States by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, of addressing, and thereby preventing or putting right, the particular Convention violation alleged against them (see, for example, l'Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah (dec.), no. 8916/05, 21 September 2010 and, by converse implication, Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, § 26, 22 October 2009 and Orlic v. Croatia, no. 48833/07, § 41, 21 June 2011).
  • EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58497/08

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08
    However, as the Court's case-law bears out (see paragraph 34 above), the mere fact that an applicant has submitted his or her case to the various competent courts does not itself constitute compliance with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as even in those jurisdictions where the domestic courts are able, or even obliged to examine the case of their own motion applicants are not dispensed from raising before them the complaint subsequently made to the Court (see, for example, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 39, Series A no. 40; Dalipi v. Greece (dec.), no. 51588/08, § 20, 26 June 2012; and TrÅ«ps v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58497/08, 20 November 2012).
  • EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 51588/08

    [FRE]

  • OLG Hamburg, 22.04.2010 - 12 WF 75/10

    Verfahrenskostenhilfe für ein einstweiliges Anordnungsverfahren zum …

  • KG, 01.03.2011 - 1 W 58/11

    Grundbucheintragungsverfahren: Vermutung der Vertretungsmacht für eine erwerbende …

  • EGMR, 06.10.2026 - 8412/23

    REKA KISS v. HUNGARY

    29426/08 and 29737/08, § 36, 10 December 2013).
  • EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

    RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

    In the context of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, most notably in cases involving issues of exhaustion in substance, the Court has, along with the factual situation presented in the light of national law, placed emphasis on the Convention arguments relied upon at the national level (see, for example, Guzzardi, cited above, § 72; Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 45, Series A no. 104; Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, §§ 32-36, Series A no. 200; B. v. France, 25 March 1992, §§ 37-39, Series A no. 232-C; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, §§ 24-32, Series A no. 236; Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands, 23 February 1995, §§ 47-49, Series A no. 306-B; Ahmet Sadık v. Greece, 15 November 1996, §§ 27-34, Reports 1996-V; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, §§ 33-39, ECHR 1999-I; Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, §§ 38-42, ECHR 2004-III; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 142-146, ECHR 2010; Gatt v. Malta, no. 28221/08, §§ 21-25, ECHR 2010; Association Les témoins de Jéhovah v. France (dec.), no. 8916/05, 21 September 2010; Karapanagiotou and Others v. Greece, no. 1571/08, §§ 25-30, 28 October 2010; and Merot d.o.o. and Storitve Tir d.o.o. v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29426/08 and 29737/08, 10 December 2013).
  • EGMR, 01.09.2026 - 45299/22

    TEACHERS' TRADE UNION AND TEACHERS' DEMOCRATIC TRADE UNION v. HUNGARY

    29426/08 and 29737/08, § 36, 10 December 2013).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht