Frizen v Russia: ECHR 24 Mar 2005

Violation of P1-1. A confiscation order made by a Russian criminal court was unlawful and involved a violation of the applicant’s rights under A1P1. The husband was convicted of fraud. She was not herself charged with any criminal offence. After his conviction the court made a confiscation order in respect of her husband’s property and it included in the confiscation order a vehicle which the applicant maintained had been bought from money which she had borrowed and belonged to her. However, it failed to identify any legal basis justifying the confiscation.
C.L. Rozakis, P
58254/00, [2005] ECHR 179, [2011] ECHR 1684
Bailii, Bailii, Bailii
Cited by:
CitedBarnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 January 2021; Ref: scu.227501