Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03   

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • HRR Strafrecht

    Art. 6 Abs. 2 EMRK; Art. 1 Zusatzprotokoll Nr. 1 zur EMRK; Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG; Art. 14 GG; § 1967 BGB
    Verletzung der Unschuldsvermutung eines Verstorbenen durch gerichtliche Schuldunterstellungen; Verletzung der Eigentumsfreiheit durch zivilrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit der Erben eines verstorbenen Angeklagten (Haftung des Erben nach Straftaten des Erblassers; Enteignung; Verfahrensrechte zum Schutz eigenen Eigentums)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    VULAKH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1
    Violation of Art. 6-2 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges




Kontextvorschau:





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

Wird zitiert von ... (8)  

  • EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09  

    ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

    (e) the imposition of civil liability to pay compensation to the victim (see Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 36, ECHR 2003-II; Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 39, ECHR 2003-II; Orr, cited above, §§ 47-49; Erkol v. Turkey, no. 50172/06, §§ 33 and 37, 19 April 2011; Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 32, 10 January 2012; Diacenco v. Romania, no. 124/04, § 55, 7 February 2012; Lagardère v. France, no. 18851/07, §§ 73 and 76, 12 April 2012; and Constantin Florea v. Romania, no. 21534/05, §§ 50 and 52, 19 June 2012);.
  • EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 39544/05  

    ZAGREBACKA BANKA D.D. v. CROATIA

    The State may be held responsible for losses caused by such determinations if court decisions are not given in accordance with domestic law or if they are flawed by arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 44, 10 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 20496/02  

    SILICKIENE v. LITHUANIA

    The Court further reiterates that the scope of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention is not limited to pending criminal proceedings but extends to judicial decisions taken after a prosecution has been discontinued (see, most recently, Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 33, 10 January 2012).
  • EGMR - 21712/16 (anhängig)  
    Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in view of the alleged arbitrariness of the Supreme Court's reasoning (see Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 143-144, ECHR 2004-V; Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 96, ECHR 2002-VII; and Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 44, 10 January 2012)? In particular, did the State ensure that the applicant's property rights were sufficiently protected by law and that adequate remedies were provided by which he could seek to vindicate his rights (see, mutatis mutandis, Blumberga v. Latvia, no. 70930/01, § 67, 14 October 2008)?.
  • EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13  

    MINDEK v. CROATIA

    The State may be held responsible for losses caused by such determinations if court decisions are not given in accordance with domestic law or if they are flawed by arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 44, 10 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69122/10  

    VELLA v. MALTA

    The Court has in the past been called upon to consider the application of Article 6 § 2 to judicial decisions taken following the conclusion of criminal proceedings, either by way of discontinuation or after an acquittal, in proceedings concerning, inter alia, the imposition of civil liability to pay compensation to the victim (see Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 36, ECHR 2003-II; Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 39, ECHR 2003-II; Orr v. Norway, no. 31283/04, §§ 47-49, 15 May 2008; Erkol v. Turkey, no. 50172/06, §§ 33 and 37, 19 April 2011; Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 32, 10 January 2012; Diacenco v. Romania, no. 124/04, § 55, 7 February 2012; Lagardère v. France, no. 18851/07, §§ 73 and 76, 12 April 2012; and Constantin Florea v. Romania, no. 21534/05, §§ 50 and 52, 19 June 2012).
  • EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 15706/08  

    KAISER v. AUSTRIA

    In the past the Court has been called upon to consider the application of Article 6 § 2 to judicial decisions taken following the conclusion of criminal proceedings, either by way of discontinuation or after an acquittal, in proceedings concerning, inter alia, the imposition of civil liability to pay compensation to the victim (see Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 36, ECHR 2003-II; Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 39, ECHR 2003-II; Orr v. Norway, no. 31283/04, §§ 47-49, 15 May 2008; Erkol v. Turkey, no. 50172/06, §§ 33 and 37, 19 April 2011; Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 32, 10 January 2012; Diacenco v. Romania, no. 124/04, § 55, 7 February 2012; Lagardère v. France, no. 18851/07, §§ 73 and 76, 12 April 2012; and Constantin Florea v. Romania, no. 21534/05, §§ 50 and 52, 19 June 2012).
  • EGMR - 21550/12 (anhängig)  
    Has there been an interference with the applicant's right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference in compliance with the requirements of this provision (see Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 44, 10 January 2012)?.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?

Ablegen in

Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 Alle auswählen Alle auswählen


 


Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht