CASE OF LEKIĆ v. SLOVENIA
Hearing: Lekić v. Slovenia (no. 36480/07) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-03-14 00:00:00)
Application no.: 36480/07
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2018-12-11 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:1211JUD003648007
Respondent state: SVN
Articles of the Convention: 34;35;35-1;P1-1;P1-1-1
Judges: András Sajó;Angelika Nußberger;Boštjan Zalar;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Iulia Motoc;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Lemmens;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: ZDOLSEK S. ; SACCUCI A.
Issue: OECD Benchmark Definition of Foreign Direct Investment, Fourth Edition 2008 ; IMF “Balance of Payments and International Investment Position Manual”, Sixth Edition (BPM6), 2009
Strasbourg case-law cited: Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, § 66, Series A no. 330-A;Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, ECHR 2014;Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, ECHR 2013;Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 32, ECHR 2004 III;Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, §§ 113-14, 13 December 2016;Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, §§ 109-10, ECHR 2000-I;Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 58, ECHR 1999 III;Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, ECHR 2004 V;Cantoni v. France, 15 November 1996, § 35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 V;Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 134, ECHR 2005-XII;Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 101, ECHR 2014;Centro Europa 7 S.r.1. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, 7 June 2012;Correia de Matos v. Portugal [GC], no. 56402/12, § 129, 4 April 2018;Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC] (merits), no. 25701/94, § 79, ECHR 2000 XII;Forminster Enterprises Limited v. the Czech Republic, no. 38238/04, 9 October 2008;Garib v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 43494/09, § 137, 6 November 2017;Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 97, ECHR 2003-VIII;Hennings v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 26, Series A no. 251-A;J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom, [GC], no. 44302/02, ECHR 2007-III;Jahn and Others v. Germany, [GC], nos. 46720/99 and 2 others, ECHR 2005 VI;Jeronovičs v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 75, 5 July 2016;Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV;K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, §§ 140-41, ECHR 2001-VII;Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 125, 17 May 2016;Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, 25 July 2013;Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, § 296, ECHR 2012;Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, §§ 130-32, 19 December 2017;Miller v. Sweden, no. 55853/00, § 29, 8 February 2005;Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, § 136, ECHR 2015;Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 37685/10, § 124, 20 March 2018;Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 164, ECHR 2015;Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, 29 June 2012;Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, § 28, Series A no. 141 A;Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, § 227, ECHR 2015;Špaček, s.r.o., v. the Czech Republic, no. 26449/95, § 59, 9 November 1999;Stolyarova v. Russia, no. 15711/13, § 43, 29 January 2015;Vaskrsić v. Slovenia, no. 31371/12, 25 April 2017;Vékony v. Hungary, no. 65681/13, § 34, 13 January 2015;Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, 25 October 2012;Zolotas v. Greece (no. 2), no. 66610/09, ECHR 2013
External sources: Section 27(4) of the Operations of Companies Act 1999 (in force from 23 July 1999 until 15 January 2008);Sections 6, 394(1) and 445 of the Companies Act 1993 (in force from 10 July 1993 until 4 May 2006)
Conclusion: Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
Separate opinion: TRUE