Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 41463/02, 37509/06 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AFFAIRES FOLDES ET FOLDESNE HAJLIK ET BESSENYEI CONTRE LA HONGRIE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CASES OF FOLDES AND FOLDESNE HAJLIK AND BESSENYEI AGAINST HUNGARY
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 41463/02
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 41463/02, 37509/06
Wird zitiert von ... (2)
- EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 45431/14
TIMOFEYEV ET POSTUPKIN c. RUSSIE
Par ailleurs, fût-elle justifiée au départ, une mesure restreignant la liberté de circulation d'une personne peut devenir disproportionnée et violer les droits de cette personne si elle se prolonge automatiquement pendant longtemps (Földes et Földesné Hajlik c. Hongrie, no 41463/02, § 35, CEDH 2006-XII). - EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 18675/09
S.M. c. ITALIE
Par ailleurs, fût-elle justifiée au départ, une mesure restreignant la liberté de circulation d'une personne peut devenir disproportionnée et violer les droits de cette personne si elle se prolonge automatiquement pendant longtemps (Luordo c. Italie, no 32190/96, § 96, CEDH 2003-IX, Riener précité, § 121, et Földes et Földesné Hajlik c. Hongrie, no 41463/02, § 35, 31 octobre 2006).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 41463/02 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
FÖLDES ET FÖLDESNE HAJLIK c. HONGRIE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 A... rt. 2 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3 MRK
Violation de P4-2-2 en ce qui concerne le premier requérant Partiellement irrecevable Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
FOLDES AND FOLDESNE HAJLIK v. HUNGARY
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 A... rt. 2 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3 MRK
Violation of P4-2-2 in respect of the first applicant Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 41463/02
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 41463/02
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87
RAIMONDO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 41463/02
It considers that such a restriction can in principle be considered "necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest", within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no. 281-A). - EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96
BAUMANN v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 41463/02
Any measure restricting that right must be lawful, pursue one of the legitimate aims referred to in the third paragraph of the above-mentioned Convention provision and strike a fair balance between the public interest and the individual's rights (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V). - EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 27156/02
MORBY contre le LUXEMBOURG
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 41463/02
Accordingly, in this connection, they can no longer claim to be victims, for the purposes of Article 34, of a violation of Article 6 § 1. This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999; and Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004).
- EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 29871/96
ILETMIS v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 41463/02
The Court reiterates that, even where a restriction on the individual's freedom of movement was initially warranted, maintaining it automatically over a lengthy period of time may become a disproportionate measure, violating the individual's rights (see Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 121, 23 May 2006; Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, ECHR 2003-IX; and, mutatis mutandis, Ä°letmis v. Turkey, no. 29871/96, ECHR 2005-XII). - EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 67660/01
KOVACS v. HUNGARY
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 41463/02
Accordingly, in this connection, they can no longer claim to be victims, for the purposes of Article 34, of a violation of Article 6 § 1. This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999; and Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004). - EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 25130/94
LIE AND BERNTSEN v. NORWAY
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 41463/02
Accordingly, in this connection, they can no longer claim to be victims, for the purposes of Article 34, of a violation of Article 6 § 1. This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999; and Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004).
- EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 43978/09
BATTISTA v. ITALY
- pending criminal proceedings (see Schmidt v. Austria, no. 10670/83, Commission decision of 9 July 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 44, p. 195; Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, ECHR 2001-V; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, ECHR 2006-XII; Sissanis v. Romania, no. 23468/02, 25 January 2007; Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, 21 October 2008; A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, 31 March 2009; Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 23530/02, 2 July 2009; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, 20 January 2011; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, 17 February 2011; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, 7 June 2011; and Miazdzyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, 24 January 2012);.