Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ 2016, 1621

Wird zitiert von ... (28)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09

  ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

  Consequently, the second, more extensive, aspect of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the role of which is to prevent the principle of presumption of innocence from being undermined after the relevant criminal proceedings have ended with an outcome other than conviction (such as acquittal, discontinuation of the criminal proceedings as being statute-barred, the death of an accused, and so on), is of no relevance in the present case (see Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, §§ 103 and 104, ECHR 2013; Geerings v. the Netherlands, no. 30810/03, §§ 43-50, 1 March 2007; Phillips, cited above, § 35; and Lagardère v. France, no. 18851/07, §§ 58-64, 12 April 2012).
• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  JOKELA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

  Notwithstanding the above finding, the Court observes that it must also ascertain whether the applicants, as the respondents in the civil proceedings for confiscation, were afforded a reasonable opportunity of putting their arguments before the domestic courts (see, Veits, cited above, §§ 72 and 74, and Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

  As to which exactly of the three above-mentioned property rules should apply to the applicants" situation, the Court reiterates that where a confiscation measure has been imposed independently of the existence of a criminal conviction but rather as a result of separate "civil" (within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention) judicial proceedings aimed at the recovery of assets deemed to have been acquired unlawfully, such a measure, even if it involves the irrevocable forfeiture 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, amongst many other authorities, Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A; Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Veits v. Estonia, no. 12951/11, § 70, 15 January 2015; and Sun v. Russia, no. 31004/02, § 25, 5 February 2009).

 
• EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 52024/99

  ARCURI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

  Instead, proof on a balance of probabilities or a high probability of illicit origins, combined with the inability of the owner to prove the contrary, was found to suffice for the purposes of the proportionality test under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The domestic authorities were further given leeway under the Convention to apply confiscation measures not only to persons directly accused of offences but also to their family members and other close relatives who were presumed to possess and manage the ill-gotten property informally on behalf of the suspected offenders, or who otherwise lacked the necessary bona fide status (see Raimondo, cited above, § 30; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII; Morabito and Others v. Italy (dec.), 58572/00, ECHR 7 June 2005; Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002; Webb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56054/00, 10 February 2004; and Saccoccia v. Austria, no. 69917/01, §§ 87-91, 18 December 2008; compare also with the more recent case of Silickiene, cited above, §§ 60-70, where a confiscation measure was applied to the widow of a corrupt public official).
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

  YILDIRIM contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

  Moreover, those civil proceedings for confiscation clearly formed part of a policy aimed at the prevention and eradication of corruption in the public service, and the Court reiterates that in implementing such policies, respondent States must be given a wide margin of appreciation with regard to what constitutes the appropriate means of applying measures to control the use of property such as the confiscation of all types of proceeds of crime (see, for instance, Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV, and Butler, cited above).
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 48357/07

  AZIENDA AGRICOLA SILVERFUNGHI S.A.S. AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

  Furthermore, a wide margin of appreciation is usually allowed to the State under the Convention when it comes to general measures of political, economic or social strategy, and the Court generally respects the legislature's policy choice unless it is "manifestly without reasonable foundation" (see Azienda Agricola Silverfunghi S.a.s. and Others v. Italy, nos. 48357/07, 52677/07, 52687/07 and 52701/07, § 103, 24 June 2014).
• EGMR, 05.10.2016 - 30810/03

  GEERINGS CONTRE LES PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

  Consequently, the second, more extensive, aspect of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the role of which is to prevent the principle of presumption of innocence from being undermined after the relevant criminal proceedings have ended with an outcome other than conviction (such as acquittal, discontinuation of the criminal proceedings as being statute-barred, the death of an accused, and so on), is of no relevance in the present case (see Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, §§ 103 and 104, ECHR 2013; Geerings v. the Netherlands, no. 30810/03, §§ 43-50, 1 March 2007; Phillips, cited above, § 35; and Lagardère v. France, no. 18851/07, §§ 58-64, 12 April 2012).
• EGMR, 10.02.2004 - 56054/00

  WEBB v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

  Instead, proof on a balance of probabilities or a high probability of illicit origins, combined with the inability of the owner to prove the contrary, was found to suffice for the purposes of the proportionality test under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The domestic authorities were further given leeway under the Convention to apply confiscation measures not only to persons directly accused of offences but also to their family members and other close relatives who were presumed to possess and manage the ill-gotten property informally on behalf of the suspected offenders, or who otherwise lacked the necessary bona fide status (see Raimondo, cited above, § 30; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII; Morabito and Others v. Italy (dec.), 58572/00, ECHR 7 June 2005; Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002; Webb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56054/00, 10 February 2004; and Saccoccia v. Austria, no. 69917/01, §§ 87-91, 18 December 2008; compare also with the more recent case of Silickiene, cited above, §§ 60-70, where a confiscation measure was applied to the widow of a corrupt public official).
• EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 9043/05

  NATSVLISHVILI AND TOGONIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

  One of those amendments introduced plea bargaining into the Code of Criminal Procedure (see Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia, no. 9043/05, § 49, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), whilst the second one, which concerned both the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Administrative Procedure, regulated the mechanism for the forfeiture of wrongfully acquired property.
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 36862/05

  Referring to its own comparative legal research and the Court's judgments in the cases of Raimondo v. Italy (22 February 1994, §§ 16-20, Series A no. 281-A) and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom (24 October 1986, §§ 33-42, Series A no. 108), the Constitutional Court added that such civil mechanisms, involving the forfeiture of the proceeds of crime or otherwise unlawfully obtained or unexplained property, were not unknown in a number of Western democracies, including Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

• EGMR, 02.05.2024 - 35271/19

  THE J. PAUL GETTY TRUST AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  The Court has indeed held that where a confiscation measure has been imposed independently of the existence of a criminal conviction but rather as a result of separate "civil" (within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention) judicial proceedings aimed at the recovery of assets deemed to have been acquired unlawfully, such a measure, even if it involves the irrevocable forfeiture of possessions, constitutes control of the use of property (see Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 94, 12 May 2015, and the case-law cited therein; Bokova, cited above, § 51; and Aktiva DOO v. Serbia, no. 23079/11, § 78, 19 January 2021).
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  FÁBIÁN c. HONGRIE

  45312/11, 45581/11, 45583/11, 45587/11 and 45588/11, § 40, 7 February 2012; Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no. 13902/11, 20 March 2012, and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 96, 12 May 2015).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

  BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY

  45312/11, 45581/11, 45583/11, 45587/1 and 45588/11, § 40, 7 February 2012; Panfile v. Roumania (dec.), no. 13902/11, 20 March 2012, and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 96, 12 May 2015).

 
• EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 2412/19

  SHYLINA v. UKRAINE

  The Court finds it natural that the margin of appreciation available to the legislature in implementing social and economic policies should be a wide one and will respect the legislature's judgment as to what is "in the public interest" unless that judgment is "manifestly without reasonable foundation" (see, mutatis mutandis, Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, § 59, 8 December 2009, and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 96, 12 May 2015).
• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 50705/11

  TODOROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In that context, a wide margin of appreciation is usually allowed to the State when it comes to general measures of political, economic or social strategy (see Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 97, 12 May 2015).
• EGMR, 26.01.2023 - 22386/19

  VALVERDE DIGON v. SPAIN

  45312/11, 45581/11, 45583/11, 45587/1 and 45588/11, § 40, 7 February 2012; Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no. 13902/11, 20 March 2012, and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 96, 12 May 2015).
• EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32667/19

  DOMENECH ARADILLA AND RODRÍGUEZ GONZÁLEZ v. SPAIN

  The Court finds it natural that the margin of appreciation available to the legislature in implementing social and economic policies should be a wide one and will respect the legislature's judgment as to what is "in the public interest" unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation (see, mutatis mutandis, The former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, § 87, ECHR 2000-XII; Wieczorek, cited above, § 59; Frimu and Others v. Romania (dec.), no. 45312/11 and 4 others, § 40, 7 February 2012; Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no. 13902/11, 20 March 2012, and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 96, 12 May 2015).
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 6232/20

  SAAKASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  It reiterates in this connection that an application is an abuse of the right of application if it is knowingly based on untrue facts with a view to deceiving the Court (see Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, § 76, 12 May 2015).
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 13112/07

  FELIX GUTU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  La Cour redit également qu'en vertu de cette disposition une requête peut être déclarée abusive notamment si elle se fonde délibérément sur des faits controuvés (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Akdivar et autres c. Turquie, 16 septembre 1996, §§ 53-54, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-IV, et Gogitidze et autres c. Géorgie, no 36862/05, § 76, 12 mai 2015).
• EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 17483/10

  MARKUS v. LATVIA

  Accordingly, the present case should be distinguished from cases in which the confiscation measure extended to the proceeds of a criminal offence (productum sceleris) (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, ECHR 2001-VII; Silickiene v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, 10 April 2012; and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, 12 May 2015), property that was presumed to be of unlawful origin (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A; Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; and Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII), property that was the object of the offence (objectum sceleris) (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108; Sun v. Russia, no. 31004/02, 5 February 2009; and Ismayilov, cited above), or property that had served, or had been intended to serve, for the commission of the crime (instrumentum sceleris) (see Andonoski, cited above; B.K.M. Lojistik Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Slovenia, no. 42079/12, 17 January 2017; and S.C. Service Benz Com S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 58045/11, 4 July 2017; see also Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 21.04.2020 - 35215/06

  SEVCENCO ET TIMOSIN c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 73911/16

  LARRAÑAGA ARANDO AND OTHERS v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 64725/19

  FERHATOVIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 41680/13

  ULEMEK v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 75529/16

  MARTÍNEZ AGIRRE AND OTHERS v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 27879/13

  BOKOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 32889/09

  IORDACHESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR - 81658/17 (anhängig)

  NOCERINO v. ITALY and 3 other applications
• EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 40171/11

  PAPAKÇI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 30619/09

  ALDEA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 23178/13

  DOSTENKO v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR - 36551/22 (anhängig)

  ISAIA v. ITALY and 2 other applications
• EGMR - 973/21 (anhängig)

  FRAROVI S.A.S. DI ROVINELLI THOMAS & C. v. ITALY and 3 other applications
• EGMR - 47269/18 (anhängig)

  GAROFALO v. ITALY and 3 other applications
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 27803/16

  PIRAS v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR - 76967/17 (anhängig)

  PERROZZI v. ITALY and 13 other applications
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 58166/18

  PUISYS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR - 61799/15 (anhängig)

  MACAGNINO v. ITALY and 1 other application