Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) ; Violation of P1-1 ; No violation of Art. 6-1 ; Violation of Art. 13 ; Pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award
The claimant company alleged that its human rights had been violated in that it had been ordered to pay the costs of a bankruptcy proceedings which had been quashed as invalid, and had been given no opportunity to challenge the order.
Held: The claimant had exhausted the national court procedures. The deduction had been made in accordance with national law. However, the applicant’s obligation to defray part of the bankruptcy costs was wholly unjustifiable. Even having regard to the limited amount of money involved, the deprivation of its assets was not proportionate to the ‘public interest’. A6.1 was not breached because there was no sufficient ‘right’ in existence.
Citations:
38993/97, [2003] ECHR 438
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Belvedere Alberghiera S R L v Italy ECHR 30-May-2000
Hudoc Violation of P1-1; Just satisfaction reserved
‘The first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of the peaceful enjoyment of . .
Cited – Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 18-Dec-1984
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
An interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. This balance is . .
Cited – James and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1986
The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a . .
Cited – Frydlender v France ECHR 27-Jun-2000
The reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and . .
Cited – Boyle and Rice v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Apr-1988
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
The first applicant had been convicted and sentenced for murder and subsequent acts of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.186141