Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  S.C. RED CREDIT SRL v. ROMANIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  S.C. RED CREDIT S.R.L. v. ROMANIA

  Art. 6, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 21447/03

  PREDESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 45879/09

  The Government argued that in a number of cases lodged against Romania, in particular Marinescu v. Romania ((dec.), no. 21122/02, 10 April 2007), Predescu v. Romania (no. 21447/03, § 25, 2 December 2008), Vasile Cir v. Romania ((dec.), no. 52330/07, 26 January 2010) and Ştefănuţ v. Romania ((dec.), no. 28713/05, 4 September 2012), the Court had considered that the applicants' failure to submit information which had been essential for the examination of the cases had amounted to an abuse of the right of application or had cast doubt on their good faith and had declared the applications or part thereof inadmissible.
• EGMR, 01.04.2004 - 50357/99

  CAMBERROW MM5 AD v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 45879/09

  The Court reiterates that disregarding a company's legal personality as regards the question of being the "person" directly affected will be justified only in exceptional circumstances, in particular where it is clearly established that it is impossible for the company to apply to the Court through the organs set up under its articles of incorporation or - in the event of liquidation or bankruptcy - through its liquidators or trustees in bankruptcy (see Fišmanas and Griflit Ltd. v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 23523/05, § 62, 5 November 2013; Camberrow MM5 AD v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 50357/99, 1 April 2004; and Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, § 66, Series A no. 330-A).
• EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 52330/07

  CIR c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 45879/09

  The Government argued that in a number of cases lodged against Romania, in particular Marinescu v. Romania ((dec.), no. 21122/02, 10 April 2007), Predescu v. Romania (no. 21447/03, § 25, 2 December 2008), Vasile Cir v. Romania ((dec.), no. 52330/07, 26 January 2010) and Ştefănuţ v. Romania ((dec.), no. 28713/05, 4 September 2012), the Court had considered that the applicants' failure to submit information which had been essential for the examination of the cases had amounted to an abuse of the right of application or had cast doubt on their good faith and had declared the applications or part thereof inadmissible.

• EGMR, 04.09.2012 - 28713/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 45879/09

  The Government argued that in a number of cases lodged against Romania, in particular Marinescu v. Romania ((dec.), no. 21122/02, 10 April 2007), Predescu v. Romania (no. 21447/03, § 25, 2 December 2008), Vasile Cir v. Romania ((dec.), no. 52330/07, 26 January 2010) and Ştefănuţ v. Romania ((dec.), no. 28713/05, 4 September 2012), the Court had considered that the applicants' failure to submit information which had been essential for the examination of the cases had amounted to an abuse of the right of application or had cast doubt on their good faith and had declared the applications or part thereof inadmissible.
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 28183/03

  ANGHEL CONTRE LA ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 45879/09

  The relevant legal provisions concerning the amendments to the legal rules applicable in respect of legislation concerning contraventions are set out in the case of Anghel v. Romania (no. 28183/03, §§ 35-39, 4 October 2007).
• EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 23523/05

  FISMANAS AND GRIFLIT LTD. v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 45879/09

  The Court reiterates that disregarding a company's legal personality as regards the question of being the "person" directly affected will be justified only in exceptional circumstances, in particular where it is clearly established that it is impossible for the company to apply to the Court through the organs set up under its articles of incorporation or - in the event of liquidation or bankruptcy - through its liquidators or trustees in bankruptcy (see Fišmanas and Griflit Ltd. v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 23523/05, § 62, 5 November 2013; Camberrow MM5 AD v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 50357/99, 1 April 2004; and Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, § 66, Series A no. 330-A).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 41444/05

  [FRE]

  The Court is mindful of the fact that the settlement agreement explicitly stipulated that the payment in full of USD 3, 500,000 to BNP would constitute "final settlement of all monetary amounts due under the Arbitration Awards and Court Orders referred to [above]." Without further addressing the legal nuances of the settlement agreement, the Court cannot but conclude that the settlement agreement was a major development in the applicant company's case; it concerned the very core of the application pending before the Court, without the knowledge of which it could not have been in a position to properly consider the case (compare with S.C. Red Credit S.R.L. v. Romania (dec.), no. 45879/09, §§ 41-48, 24 May 2016; Nihat and Sanija Pulić v. Serbia (dec.) [Committee], no. 34194/09, 6 September 2016; and contrast with Koka Hybro Komerc DOO Brojler v. Serbia [Committee], no. 59341/09, § 21, 14 March 2017).
• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 60727/10

  S.c. ECO INVEST S.R.L. ET BOLMADAR c. ROUMANIE

  Il n'est justifié de faire abstraction de la personnalité juridique d'une société aux fins de savoir si celle-ci peut se prévaloir de la qualité de « victime'que dans des circonstances exceptionnelles (Agrotexim et autres c. Grèce, 24 octobre 1995, § 66, série A no 330-A, Khamidov c. Russie, no 72118/01, § 123, 15 novembre 2007, et SC RED Credit SRL c. Roumanie (déc.) no 45879/09, § 45, 24 mai 2016).