Αρχική Κώδικας Διευθέτησης Οφειλών και Παροχής Δεύτερης ΕυκαιρίαςΆρθρο 01 – Σκοπός της πτώχευσηςΣχόλιο του χρήστη Σωτηριάδης χρήστος | 9 Σεπτεμβρίου 2020, 09:45
  • Σχόλιο του χρήστη 'Σωτηριάδης χρήστος' | 9 Σεπτεμβρίου 2020, 09:45

    ΤΟ ΠΑΡΟΝ ΣΧΕΔΙΟ ΝΟΜΟΥ ΕΡΧΕΤΑΙ ΣΕ ΕΥΘΕΙΑ ΑΝΤΙΘΕΣΗ ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΛΟΓΙΚΟΤΗΤΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΡΑΒΙΑΖΕΙ ΕΥΘΕΩΣ ΤΟ ΔΙΚΑΙΩΜΑ ΣΤΗ ΙΔΙΟΚΤΗΣΙΑ. ΕΡΧΕΤΑΙ ΣΕ ΑΝΤΙΘΕΣΗ ΚΑΙ ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΠΑΓΙΩΜΕΝΗ ΠΛΕΟΝ ΝΟΜΟΛΟΓΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΕΥΡΩΠΑΙΚΟΥ ΔΙΚΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΥ ΔΙΚΑΙΩΜΑΤΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΡΑΣΒΟΥΡΓΟΥ ROUSK v. SWEDEN (Application no. 27183/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 July 2013 113. Consequently, 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. The concern to achieve this balance is reflected in the structure of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a whole. The requisite balance will not be found if the person concerned has had to bear an individual and excessive burden (see, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth, cited above, §§ 69 and 73). In other words, there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see, for instance, James and Others, cited above, p. 34, § 50).......... 126. Therefore, having regard to all of the circumstances set out above, the Court concludes that the sale of the applicant’s property at public auction, and the ensuing eviction of the applicant from his home, for an enforceable debt that amounted to only SEK 6,721 on the day of the public auction, imposed an individual and excessive burden on the applicant. 127. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention...... 134. The Court notes that the sale of the applicant’s property and the ensuing eviction interfered with his right to respect for his private and family life and deprived him of his home within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention. As in the case of Zehentner v. Austria (no. 20082/02, § 54, 16 July 2009), the sale at public auction deprived the applicant legally of his home, and was a necessary pre-condition for the eviction, which factually deprived him of his home. 135. Next, the Court observes that the interference was in accordance with the law, primarily the Enforcement Code, and had the legitimate aims of protecting the rights and freedoms of others, namely that of the purchaser of the property, as well as the economic well-being of the country, by ensuring the collection of taxes. 136. However, the Court reiterates that for an interference to be considered “necessary in a democratic society”, it needs to be proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued and answer to a “pressing social need”.... 137. In this respect, the Court has held that the loss of one’s home is a most extreme form of interference with the right to respect for the home. Any person at risk of an interference of this magnitude should in principle be able to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal in the light of the relevant principles under Article 8 of the Convention (ibid. § 59, and McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, § 50, ECHR 2008). The decision-making process leading to the measures of interference must also have been fair. The Court will therefore attach particular weight to the existence of procedural safeguards. ΤΟ ΙΔΙΟ ΔΙΚΑΣΤΗΡΙΟ ΠΡΟΣΤΑΤΕΥΕΙ ΤΗΝ ΙΔΙΟΚΤΗΣΙΑ ΑΚΟΜΑ ΚΑΙ ΟΤΑΝ ΠΡΟΚΕΙΤΑΙ ΓΙΑ ΑΥΘΑΙΡΕΤΟ ΚΤΙΣΜΑ IVANOVA AND CHERKEZOV VS. BULGARIA N . 46577/15, 21 APRIL 2016. ΠΟΙΟ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΓΜΑΤΙΚΟ ΔΗΜΟΣΙΟ ΣΥΜΦΕΡΟΝ ΠΟΥ ΕΞΥΠΗΡΕΤΕΙ ΤΟ ΠΑΡΟΝ ΝΟΜΟΣΧΕΔΙΟ ,ΟΤΑΝ Η ΙΔΙΑ ΦΙΛΟΚΥΒΕΡΝΗΤΙΚΗ ΕΦΗΜΕΡΙΔΑ "ΚΑΘΗΜΕΡΙΝΗ" ΜΑΣ ΛΕΕΙ ΟΤΙ ΑΥΤΟΣ Ο ΝΟΜΟΣ ΖΗΤΗΘΗΚΕ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΥΣ ΔΑΝΕΙΣΤΕΣ,ΠΟΥ ΩΣ ΓΝΩΣΤΟΝ ΕΚΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΥΝ ΙΔΙΩΤΙΚΑ ΣΥΜΦΕΡΟΝΤΑ; ΔΗΜΟΣΙΟ ΣΥΜΦΕΡΟΝ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΝΑ ΜΑΣ ΠΕΡΝΟΥΝ ΤΑ ΣΠΙΤΙΑ ΓΙΑ ΕΝΑΝ ΔΥΣΒΑΣΤΑΧΤΟ ΦΟΡΟ ( ΕΝΦΙΑ ) ΠΟΥ ΗΡΘΕ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΠΟΥΘΕΝΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΝΕΤΡΕΨΕ ΡΙΖΙΚΑ ΤΙΣ ΚΑΛΥΤΕΡΕΣ ΠΡΟΒΛΕΨΕΙΣ ΠΟΥ ΕΙΧΑΜΕ ΚΑΝΕΙ ΚΑΛΟΠΙΣΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΝΩ ΣΕ ΑΥΤΕΣ ΕΙΧΑΜΕ ΣΤΗΡΙΞΕΙ ΤΟ ΜΕΛΛΟΝ ΜΑΣ ; ..........The recent refusal by the CREDITORS to accept an extension of the protection of main residences is spurring the government’s plans for the timely preparation of the bill. The bill’s main feature will be the absence of main residence protection, which will be counterbalanced by the swift write-off of debtors’ remaining dues after the liquidation of all their assets. https://www.ekathimerini.com/251633/article/ekathimerini/business/bankruptcy-reform-due-this-summer ΝΑ ΑΠΟΣΥΡΘΕΙ !