Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOFIA v. SAN MARINO

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.10.1988 - 10519/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 38977/15

  While the Convention does not regard such presumptions with indifference, they are not prohibited in principle, as long as States remain within reasonable limits, taking into account the importance of what is at stake and maintaining the rights of the defence (see Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A, § 28, and Grayson and Barnham v. the United Kingdom, nos. 19955/05 and 15085/06, § 40, 23 September 2008).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 38977/15

  Moreover, Article 6 § 3 (a) does not impose any special formal requirement as to the manner in which the accused is to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 51-53, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 38977/15

  Particulars of the offence play a crucial role in the criminal process, in that it is from the moment of their service that the suspect is formally put on notice of the factual and legal basis of the charges against him (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, § 79).

• EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 38977/15

  In that connection, the Court reiterates that viewed as a procedural guarantee in the context of a criminal trial itself, the presumption of innocence imposes requirements in respect of, inter alia, the burden of proof and legal presumptions of fact and law (see Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 93, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10964/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 38977/15

  It listed the name of the accused, the place and date of the alleged violations, the relevant articles of the Criminal Code and a description of the alleged criminal behaviour (see paragraph 14 above) (see Brozicek v. Italy, 19 December 1989, § 42, Series A no. 167).
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 19955/05

  GRAYSON AND BARNHAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 38977/15

  While the Convention does not regard such presumptions with indifference, they are not prohibited in principle, as long as States remain within reasonable limits, taking into account the importance of what is at stake and maintaining the rights of the defence (see Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A, § 28, and Grayson and Barnham v. the United Kingdom, nos. 19955/05 and 15085/06, § 40, 23 September 2008).
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 28457/10

  ABOUFADDA c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 38977/15

  Against that background, and given the importance of the aim pursued, the Court does not consider that the interference with the applicant's peaceful enjoyment of his possessions was disproportionate (compare, Phillips, cited above, § 55 and Aboufadda v. France, (dec.), no. 28457/10, 4 November 2014).
• EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 29861/03

  HAXHIA v. ALBANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 38977/15

  That information should be detailed (see Haxhia v. Albania, no. 29861/03, § 127, 8 October 2013).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 19581/04

  VAN OFFEREN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 38977/15

  The Court has in a number of cases been prepared to treat confiscation proceedings following on from a conviction as part of the sentencing process and therefore as beyond the scope of Article 6 § 2 (see, in particular, Phillips, cited above, § 34, and Van Offeren v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 19581/04, 5 July 2005).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  BALSAMO v. SAN MARINO et 1 autre affaire

  In such circumstances and particularly in view of the applicant's acquittal precisely on the basis of the lack of intention, it cannot be said that the measure also included a punitive purpose (see, a contrario, Sofia v. San Marino (dec.), no. 38977/15, § 63, 2 May 2017, and Vannucci v. San Marino, (dec.), no. 33898/15, 28 March 2017, concerning a confiscation of laundered assets, or the equivalent, respectively, under Article 147 (3) of the Criminal Code which were applicable after conviction, and Welch v. the United Kingdom, 9 February 1995, § 27, Series A no. 307-A, where the confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking followed a finding of guilt and its amount depended on the degree of culpability of the applicant).
• EGMR, 11.05.2023 - 3405/21

  ZAGHINI v. SAN MARINO

  Indeed, depriving a person of the product and the profits of the laundering or other crimes, is in line with the powers conferred on courts as a weapon in the fight against money laundering (see Sofia v. San Marino, (dec.) no. 38977/15, 2 May 2017).
• EGMR, 07.10.2025 - 48725/12

  PRENCA v. SERBIA and 7 other applications

  Indeed, depriving a person of the product and the profits of money laundering or other crimes is in line with the powers conferred on courts as a weapon in the fight against money laundering (see Sofia v. San Marino, (dec.) no. 38977/15, §§ 70-72, 2 May 2017).

• EGMR, 12.09.2024 - 25189/21

  MELANDRI v. SAN MARINO

  Rn. 49 In the present case the indictment clearly indicated the name of the accused, the relevant articles of the CC, a description of the criminal behaviour (the facts), and the relevant place and dates, as well as the predicate offences (see, mutatis mutandis, Sofia v. San Marino (dec.), no. 38977/15, § 50, 2 May 2017).
• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 21108/16

  BARUCA v. SAN MARINO

  In this connection the Court notes, however, that the applicant was charged with money laundering and not with the offences at the origin of the assets (see, in connection with a complaint under Article 6, Sofia v. San Marino (dec.), no. 38977/15, § 50, 2 May 2017).
• EGMR, 03.06.2021 - 48431/18

  BUSUTTIL v. MALTA

  The Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see Grayson and Barnham, cited above, § 42; and Sofia v. San Marino (dec.), no. 38977/15, § 59, 2 May 2017).
• EGMR, 19.12.2024 - 2205/23

  CHETRIT c. FRANCE

  Il en va de même s'agissant de la question du respect des exigences imposées par la présomption d'innocence, au sens de l'article 6 § 2, en ce qui concerne, notamment, la charge de la preuve et les présomptions légales de fait et de droit (Sofia c. Saint-Marin (déc.), no 38977/15, § 58, 2 mai 2017).
• EGMR, 14.11.2024 - 11536/23

  ROBERTI v. SAN MARINO

  Rn. 24 However, it could be argued that Article 6 § 1 applies as a result of the confiscation imposed upon the applicant, either under the civil limb or under the criminal limb (should the confiscation in the present case amount to a penalty, compare and contrast, Sofia v. San Marino (dec.), no. 38977/15, § 64, 2 May 2017, and Balsamo v. San Marino, nos.
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 21400/17

  CAMERINI v. SAN MARINO

  The Court observes that in the present case the assessment of evidence was carried out by a court in a judicial procedure including a public hearing and the opportunity for the applicant to adduce documentary and oral evidence (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 43, ECHR 2001-VII; Grayson and Barnham, cited above § 45; and Sofia v. San Marino (dec.), no. 38977/15, § 59, 2 May 2017).
• EGMR - 20912/24 (anhängig)

  GRIMALDI AND PARISI v. SAN MARINO

  (d) In so far as the first applicant was issued with an order of confiscation which included the sum of around EUR 50, 000 (related to transactions that took place prior to the entry into force of the offence of money laundering in 1999), did this constitute a penalty for the purposes of Article 7 (see Sofia v. San Marino (dec.) no. 38977/15, § 64, 2 May 2017; Vannucci v. San Marino (dec.) no. 33898/15, § 40-42; and, conversely, Balsamo v. San Marino, nos.