Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 25691/04 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BUKTA ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE
Art. 10, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'art. 11 Aucune question distincte au regard de l'art. 10 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BUKTA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Art. 10, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 11 No separate issue under Art. 10 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings ...
Wird zitiert von ... (62)
- EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12
Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny
It is not, in principle, contrary to the spirit of Article 11 if, for reasons of public order and national security a High Contracting Party requires that the holding of meetings be subject to authorisation (see Oya Ataman, cited above, § 37; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 35, ECHR 2007-III; Balçik and Others v. Turkey, no. 25/02, § 49, 29 November 2007; Nurettin Aldemir and Others v. Turkey, nos.It appears that the nuisance caused by the applicant and his fellow protestors caused a certain disruption to ordinary life but did not in the concrete circumstances exceed that level of minor disturbance that follows from normal exercise of the right of peaceful assembly in a public place (see Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 47, 24 July 2012; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 37, ECHR 2007-III; cf. Kudrevicius and Others, cited above, §§ 149, 164-75).
- EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 37553/05
KUDREVICIUS ET AUTRES c. LITUANIE
It is not, in principle, contrary to the spirit of Article 11 if, for reasons of public order and national security a High Contracting Party requires that the holding of meetings be subject to authorisation (see Oya Ataman, cited above, § 37; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 35, ECHR 2007-III; Balçik and Others v. Turkey, no. 25/02, § 49, 29 November 2007; Nurettin Aldemir and Others v. Turkey, nos. - EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 57818/09
LASHMANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Government submitted that the notification procedure established by Russian law did not encroach upon the essence of the right under Article 11 of the Convention, because its purpose was to allow the authorities to take reasonable and appropriate measures to protect public order, to guarantee the smooth conduct of a public event, and to reconcile the right to freedom of assembly on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the rights and lawful interests (including the freedom of movement) of others (see, for example, Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 35, ECHR 2007-III, and Éva Molnár v. Hungary, no. 10346/05, § 37, 7 October 2008).It is not, in principle, contrary to the spirit of Article 11 if, for reasons of public order and national security a High Contracting Party requires that the holding of meetings be subject to authorisation (see Oya Ataman, cited above, § 37; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 35, ECHR 2007-III; Balçik and Others v. Turkey, no. 25/02, § 49, 29 November 2007; Nurettin Aldemir and Others v. Turkey, nos.
- EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11
NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA
In particular, where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (ibid., § 42; see also see Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012; Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 136-37, 30 May 2013, and Kasparov, cited above, § 91).[23] Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 36, 17 July 2007.
- EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08
FÁBER v. HUNGARY
However, in similar circumstances the Court does not take additional, ex post facto justifications offered by the Government into consideration (see Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III). - EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 21613/07
KASPAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
In particular, where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (ibid., § 42; see also Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012, and Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012). - EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 17391/06
PRIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
In particular, where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings (see Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Galstyan, cited above, §§ 116-117; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 37, ECHR 2007-III; Oya Ataman, cited above, §§ 38-42; and Akgöl and Göl v. Turkey, nos. 28495/06 and 28516/06, § 43, 17 May 2011). - EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 26005/08
TATÁR AND FÁBER v. HUNGARY
Moreover, the "performance" in question was no spontaneous demonstration which would have been made devoid of any purpose had the requirement of prior notification been complied with (cf., a contrario, Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, §§ 31 to 39, ECHR 2007-III). - EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 26587/07
KRUPKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Court has consistently held that, even in cases where the authorities had not been properly notified of a public event but where the participants did not represent a danger to the public order, dispersal of a peaceful assembly by the police could not be regarded as having been "necessary in a democratic society" (see Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, §§ 95-96, 3 October 2013; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, §§ 37-38, ECHR 2007-III, and Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, §§ 42-43, ECHR 2006-XIII). - EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 10346/05
EVA MOLNÁR c. HONGRIE
Le Gouvernement soutient que l'espèce se distingue de l'affaire Bukta et autres c. Hongrie (no 25691/04, CEDH 2007-IX). - EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04
MALOFEYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 10877/04
SERGEY KUZNETSOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25501/07
NOVIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 6991/08
HYDE PARK AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA (Nos. 5 and 6)
- EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 29580/12
NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 9049/06
ÖZALP ULUSOY c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06
BERLADIR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 37553/05
KUDREVICIUS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 16084/90
PROTOPAPA v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 60259/11
GAFGAZ MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 9117/04
NOSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 4524/06
YILMAZ YILDIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 38676/08
DISK AND KESK v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6142/18
KOTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 18079/15
BUMBES v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 74768/10
CHERNEGA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 11.10.2018 - 14237/07
TUSKIA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 70396/11
AKARSUBASI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 42606/05
IZCI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 23018/04
URCAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 69234/11
IBRAHIMOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 56395/08
ÖZBENT ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 44861/04
IZGI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 26638/07
KONUK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07
KASPAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 16081/90
PETRAKIDOU v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 16091/90
OLYMBIOU v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 16082/90
STRATI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 17804/09
BARSEGHYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 9802/07
BOZDUMAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 4572/06
PEKASLAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 26258/07
RAI ET EVANS c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 16085/90
CHRISTODOULIDOU v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 12781/16
PETRENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 21.10.2021 - 44390/16
VINCZE v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 41462/17
LAGUNA GUZMAN v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 06.03.2018 - 44529/09
CHUMAK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 06.04.2017 - 20589/13
MEHTIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 16078/90
VRAHIMI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 16094/90
ANDREOU PAPI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 16999/04
SAMÜT KARABULUT v. TURKEY
- EGMR - 66792/14 (anhängig)
VASS v. HUNGARY and 2 other applications
- EGMR - 4876/15 (anhängig)
KRIGER v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications
- EGMR - 68028/14 (anhängig)
CSIBI c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR - 72826/14 (anhängig)
FOCK v. HUNGARY and 1 other application
- EGMR - 42444/17 (anhängig)
KEREKGYARTO v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 5417/13
ABBASLI v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 41479/10
BUDAHÁZY v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 29835/05
GAZIOGLU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 16079/90
ASPROFTAS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 29768/03
KARTAL ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 06.04.2017 - 65910/14
KHALILOVA AND AYYUBZADE v. AZERBAIJAN