Webinar: Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Mi. den 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
×
×
Doctrine-WebinarNicht verpassen
Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Mi. den 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 - 12:00 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 9702/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,44693
EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 9702/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,44693)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05.02.2009 - 9702/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,44693)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05. Februar 2009 - 9702/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,44693)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,44693) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 ... (32)Zitiert selbst (11)

  • EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

    Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 9702/04
    This element distinguishes the instant case from cases in which the confiscation measure applied either to goods whose importation was prohibited (see AGOSI, cited above, concerning a ban on importing gold coins, and Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, ECHR 2005-VI, concerning the banning of Yugoslav aircraft falling under the sanctions regime) or vehicles used for transporting prohibited substances or trafficking in human beings (see Air Canada, cited above; C.M. v. France (dec.), cited above; and Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV).
  • EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86

    BENDENOUN c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 9702/04
    The confiscation measure in question was not intended as pecuniary compensation for damage - as the State had not suffered any loss as a result of the applicant's failure to declare the money - but was deterrent and punitive in its purpose (compare Bendenoun v. France, 24 February 1994, § 47, Series A no. 284).
  • EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80
    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 9702/04
    The Court reiterates its consistent approach that a confiscation measure, even though it does involve a deprivation of possessions, nevertheless constitutes control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII; C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, ECHR 2001-VII; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A; and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 34, Series A no. 108).
  • EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

    RAIMONDO v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 9702/04
    On that ground it distinguishes the present case from cases in which the confiscation measure extended to assets which were the proceeds of a criminal offence (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, §§ 9-18, ECHR 2001-VII), which were deemed to have been unlawfully acquired (see Riela and Arcuri, both cited above, and Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 29, Series A no. 281-A) or were intended for use in illegal activities (see Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002).
  • EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

    AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 9702/04
    The Court reiterates its consistent approach that a confiscation measure, even though it does involve a deprivation of possessions, nevertheless constitutes control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII; C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, ECHR 2001-VII; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A; and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 34, Series A no. 108).
  • EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 52024/99

    ARCURI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 9702/04
    The Court reiterates its consistent approach that a confiscation measure, even though it does involve a deprivation of possessions, nevertheless constitutes control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII; C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, ECHR 2001-VII; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A; and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 34, Series A no. 108).
  • EGMR, 04.09.2001 - 52439/99

    RIELA ET AUTRES contre l'ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 9702/04
    The Court reiterates its consistent approach that a confiscation measure, even though it does involve a deprivation of possessions, nevertheless constitutes control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII; C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, ECHR 2001-VII; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A; and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 34, Series A no. 108).
  • EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38602/02

    YILDIRIM contre l'ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 9702/04
    This element distinguishes the instant case from cases in which the confiscation measure applied either to goods whose importation was prohibited (see AGOSI, cited above, concerning a ban on importing gold coins, and Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, ECHR 2005-VI, concerning the banning of Yugoslav aircraft falling under the sanctions regime) or vehicles used for transporting prohibited substances or trafficking in human beings (see Air Canada, cited above; C.M. v. France (dec.), cited above; and Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV).
  • EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 28078/95

    C.M. c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 9702/04
    The Court reiterates its consistent approach that a confiscation measure, even though it does involve a deprivation of possessions, nevertheless constitutes control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99, 4 September 2001; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII; C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, ECHR 2001-VII; Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316-A; and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 34, Series A no. 108).
  • OLG Hamm, 17.04.1997 - 2 Ws 109/97

    Aufhebung von Haftbefehlen wegen weiterhin versagter Akteneinsicht und fehlender …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 9702/04
    Section 298 of the Criminal Code (Kazneni zakon, Official Gazette nos. 110/97, 27/98 (corrigendum), 129/00 and 51/01), as in force at the material time, read as follows:.
  • RG, 05.03.1901 - 67/01

    Genügt es zur Annahme eines nach § 114 St.G.B.'s strafbaren Unternehmens der …

  • EGMR, 07.10.2025 - 48725/12

    PRENCA v. SERBIA and 7 other applications

    Referring to Gabrić v. Croatia (no. 9702/04, 5 February 2009) and his earlier arguments, he complained that the confiscation of the entire amount exceeding the statutory threshold was unnecessary and disproportionate.

    In assessing this issue, the Court takes into account the nature and seriousness of the offence of which the applicant was accused, his conduct, and the nature and severity of the penalties imposed (see Grifhorst, cited above, §§ 94-105, and Gabrić v. Croatia, no. 9702/04, §§ 36-39, 5 February 2009).

  • EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 43492/11

    BOLJEVIC v. CROATIA

    In so arguing, he referred to the Court's case-law, in particular to the case of Gabrić v. Croatia (no. 9702/04, 5 February 2009).

    He stated that his situation was the same as that of the applicant in the case of Gabrić v. Croatia (no. 9702/04, 5 February 2009), and that he could not see why the Court would take a different approach in his case.

  • EGMR, 17.09.2024 - 15887/15

    YAYLALI v. SERBIA

    The applicant's misconduct was classified as deliberate on the basis that he must have been aware of the declaration duty and had therefore wilfully accepted the consequences of his failure to comply with it (see paragraph 8 above; with regard to the presence or absence of intent to deceive the authorities, compare and contrast Sadocha v. Ukraine, no. 77508/11, §§ 29-33, 11 July 2019; Togrul v. Bulgaria, no. 20611/10, § 44, 15 November 2018; Gyrlyan, cited above, § 27; Ismayilov v. Russia, no. 30352/03, §§ 36-38, 6 November 2008; and Gabrić v. Croatia, no. 9702/04, §§ 38-39, 5 February 2009).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht