The ECHR found a violation of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Заголовок: The ECHR found a violation of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Ri Сведения: 2018-09-16 07:24:02

ECHR judgment of 01 December 2016 in the case of Reisner v. Turkey (application No. 46815/09).

In 2009, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Turkey.

In the case, the applicant successfully complained of causing material damage to him as a shareholder due to the illegal seizure of the bank. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE


By judgment of 21 July 2015, the Court unanimously found that there had been a violation of the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 6 of the Convention and concluded that the applicant as a shareholder had been given a disproportionate burden as a result of the unlawful takeover "Demirbank" by the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund. The question of just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention was not considered ready for consideration.


ISSUES OF LAW


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. Given the significant inconsistency of the positions of the parties in determining the pecuniary compensation for the damage caused to the applicant, the Court has reached its own conclusions on the basis of the documents available in the case file and the parties' submissions.

The Government claimed that the applicant had not suffered any material damage, since the carrying value of the bank was negative when he was absorbed. The Court notes that the market and book value of the company may differ materially. If the market value is the company's value on the stock exchange, the book value refers to the net worth of the company's assets, which was determined by deducting liabilities from the total assets. The Court considers that the applicant as a minority shareholder did not participate in the management of the bank and was not liable for his debts. Under such circumstances, the book value was not an appropriate basis for calculating the material damage caused to the applicant. It is clear that the day before the takeover of the bank's shares had a certain monetary value. This was the average market value of shares on the date, which should be taken into account when determining the material damage.


DECISION


The Court awarded 514 euros in respect of pecuniary damage to the applicant, the finding of a violation of the Convention would constitute a fair fair compensation for non-pecuniary damage (unanimously).

See also Brumarescu v. Romania (Fair Compensation) of 23 January 2001, application no. 28342/95 and Papachalopoulos and Others v. Greece (no. Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece) (art. 50) of 31 October 1995, application No. 14556/89.

 

Добавить комментарий

Защитный код
Обновить

© 2011-2018 Юридическая помощь в составлении жалоб в Европейский суд по правам человека. Юрист (представитель) ЕСПЧ.