{"title":"《欧洲人权公约》中“财产”的范畴和产权保护的主体","authors":"O. S. Kizlova","doi":"10.36059/978-966-397-177-3/127-143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction The questions of the subjective structure of the procedure for protecting property rights in the ECHR has been controversial for a long time among researchers and lawyers due to the perception that prevailed for quite a long period that commercial organizations cannot be applicants to the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the ECHR). To a certain extent, it was based on the title of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the Convention), which contains an indication of human rights and freedoms; partly – of the wrong interpretation of the provisions of Art. 34 of the Convention, which provides the possibility of applying to the ECHR for individuals, non-governmental organizations or groups of individuals. This misconception about the ability of the ECHR to deal with complaints of commercial organizations also led to the fact that its case practice was not analyzed for the purpose of its use in resolving commercial disputes and therefore did not have the effect that it would, in fact, have on law enforcement (including judicial) practice. This highly pervasive misconception was to some extent “undermined” by the ECHR’s ruling on the individual complaint of the Russian joint-stock company “Sovtransavto contra Ukraine” (ECHR judgment of October, 2nd 2003 in the case of “Sovtransavto Holding contrat Ukraine”, No 48553 complaint / 99 (CASE of Sovtransavto HOLDING art. UKRAINE). The case is based on the application (No 48553/99) filled in court against Ukraine by the Russian company ‘Sovtransavto-Holding’ on May 11th, 1999 in accordance with the Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Most other human rights and fundamental freedoms can only be used by private individuals otherwise the articles which regulate these rights and freedoms can be interpreted as not extending to legal persons 1 . At the same time, the European Court of Human Rights also gave more signification to the term “person” according to Convention and allows supporting claims of","PeriodicalId":430051,"journal":{"name":"THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS OF THE LEGAL REGULATION OF SOCIAL RELATIONS","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CATEGORY OF “PROPERTY” AND SUBJECTS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION OF THE ECHR\",\"authors\":\"O. S. Kizlova\",\"doi\":\"10.36059/978-966-397-177-3/127-143\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction The questions of the subjective structure of the procedure for protecting property rights in the ECHR has been controversial for a long time among researchers and lawyers due to the perception that prevailed for quite a long period that commercial organizations cannot be applicants to the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the ECHR). To a certain extent, it was based on the title of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the Convention), which contains an indication of human rights and freedoms; partly – of the wrong interpretation of the provisions of Art. 34 of the Convention, which provides the possibility of applying to the ECHR for individuals, non-governmental organizations or groups of individuals. This misconception about the ability of the ECHR to deal with complaints of commercial organizations also led to the fact that its case practice was not analyzed for the purpose of its use in resolving commercial disputes and therefore did not have the effect that it would, in fact, have on law enforcement (including judicial) practice. This highly pervasive misconception was to some extent “undermined” by the ECHR’s ruling on the individual complaint of the Russian joint-stock company “Sovtransavto contra Ukraine” (ECHR judgment of October, 2nd 2003 in the case of “Sovtransavto Holding contrat Ukraine”, No 48553 complaint / 99 (CASE of Sovtransavto HOLDING art. UKRAINE). The case is based on the application (No 48553/99) filled in court against Ukraine by the Russian company ‘Sovtransavto-Holding’ on May 11th, 1999 in accordance with the Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Most other human rights and fundamental freedoms can only be used by private individuals otherwise the articles which regulate these rights and freedoms can be interpreted as not extending to legal persons 1 . At the same time, the European Court of Human Rights also gave more signification to the term “person” according to Convention and allows supporting claims of\",\"PeriodicalId\":430051,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS OF THE LEGAL REGULATION OF SOCIAL RELATIONS\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS OF THE LEGAL REGULATION OF SOCIAL RELATIONS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36059/978-966-397-177-3/127-143\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS OF THE LEGAL REGULATION OF SOCIAL RELATIONS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36059/978-966-397-177-3/127-143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
由于长期以来普遍认为商业组织不能成为欧洲人权法院(以下简称ECHR)的申请人,因此欧洲人权法院保护产权程序的主观结构问题在研究人员和律师中一直存在争议。在某种程度上,它是以《欧洲保护人权和基本自由公约》(以下简称《公约》)的标题为基础的,其中载有人权和自由的指示;部分原因是对《公约》第34条规定的错误解释,该条款为个人、非政府组织或个人群体提供了适用《欧洲人权公约》的可能性。对《欧洲人权公约》处理商业组织投诉能力的这种误解也导致了这样一个事实,即没有对其案例实践进行分析,以便将其用于解决商业纠纷,因此没有产生它实际上对执法(包括司法)实践所产生的影响。这种普遍存在的误解在一定程度上被欧洲人权法院对俄罗斯股份公司“Sovtransavto contra Ukraine”的个人申诉的裁决“破坏”了(欧洲人权法院2003年10月2日对“Sovtransavto Holding contract Ukraine”一案的判决,第48553号申诉/ 99号(Sovtransavto Holding art)。乌克兰)。本案基于1999年5月11日俄罗斯公司“Sovtransavto-Holding”根据《保护人权和基本自由公约》第34条向法院提交的针对乌克兰的申请(第48553/99号)。大多数其他人权和基本自由只能由私人使用,否则,规定这些权利和自由的条款可以解释为不适用于法人1。与此同时,欧洲人权法院也根据《公约》赋予“人”一词更多的含义,并允许支持的主张
CATEGORY OF “PROPERTY” AND SUBJECTS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION OF THE ECHR
Introduction The questions of the subjective structure of the procedure for protecting property rights in the ECHR has been controversial for a long time among researchers and lawyers due to the perception that prevailed for quite a long period that commercial organizations cannot be applicants to the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the ECHR). To a certain extent, it was based on the title of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the Convention), which contains an indication of human rights and freedoms; partly – of the wrong interpretation of the provisions of Art. 34 of the Convention, which provides the possibility of applying to the ECHR for individuals, non-governmental organizations or groups of individuals. This misconception about the ability of the ECHR to deal with complaints of commercial organizations also led to the fact that its case practice was not analyzed for the purpose of its use in resolving commercial disputes and therefore did not have the effect that it would, in fact, have on law enforcement (including judicial) practice. This highly pervasive misconception was to some extent “undermined” by the ECHR’s ruling on the individual complaint of the Russian joint-stock company “Sovtransavto contra Ukraine” (ECHR judgment of October, 2nd 2003 in the case of “Sovtransavto Holding contrat Ukraine”, No 48553 complaint / 99 (CASE of Sovtransavto HOLDING art. UKRAINE). The case is based on the application (No 48553/99) filled in court against Ukraine by the Russian company ‘Sovtransavto-Holding’ on May 11th, 1999 in accordance with the Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Most other human rights and fundamental freedoms can only be used by private individuals otherwise the articles which regulate these rights and freedoms can be interpreted as not extending to legal persons 1 . At the same time, the European Court of Human Rights also gave more signification to the term “person” according to Convention and allows supporting claims of