Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RONGONI c. ITALIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6-1 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Frais et dépens (procédure nationale) - demande rejetée Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.11.2000 - 44531/98
• EGMR, 25.10.2001 - 44531/98

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97

  BOTTAZZI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2001 - 44531/98

  La Cour rappelle avoir constaté dans de nombreux arrêts (voir, par exemple, Bottazzi c. Italie [GC], n° 34884/97, § 22, CEDH 1999-V) l'existence en Italie d'une pratique contraire à la Convention résultant d'une accumulation de manquements à l'exigence du «délai raisonnable».

• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 486/14

  Psychiatrie-Opfer scheitert mit erneuter Beschwerde

  Die diesbezügliche Rolle des Ministerkomitees bedeutet allerdings nicht, dass Maßnahmen, die ein beschwerdegegnerischer Staat getroffen hat, um vom Gerichtshof festgestellten Konventionsverletzungen abzuhelfen, nicht eine neue Frage aufwerfen können, die im Urteil offen geblieben ist (…siehe Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT), a.a.O., Rdnr. 62; Hakkar./. Frankreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 43580/04, 7. April 2009;… H., a.a.O.; Mehemi [./. Frankreich (Nr. 2), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 53470/99, Rdnr. 43, ECHR 2003-IV]; Rongoni./. Italien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 44531/98, Rdnr. 13, 25.
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Le rôle joué par le Comité des Ministres dans ce domaine ne signifie pas pour autant que les mesures prises par un État défendeur en vue de remédier à la violation constatée par la Cour ne puissent pas soulever un problème nouveau, non tranché par l'arrêt (Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT), précité, § 62 ; Hakkar c. France (déc.), no 43580/04, 7 avril 2009 ; Haase, précité ; Mehemi [c. France (no 2), no 53470/99, § 43, CEDH 2003-IV] ; Rongoni c. Italie, no 44531/98, § 13, 25 octobre 2001 ; Rando c. Italie, no 38498/97, § 17, 15 février 2000 ; Leterme c. France, 29 avril 1998, Recueil 1998-III ; Pailot c. France, 22 avril 1998, § 57, Recueil 1998-II, et Olsson c. Suède (no 2), 27 novembre 1992, série A no 250), et à elles seules faire l'objet d'une nouvelle requête que la Cour pourrait être appelée à examiner.
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 33800/14

  HARABIN v. SLOVAKIA

  However, the Committee of Ministers" role in this sphere does not mean that measures taken by a respondent State to remedy a violation found by the Court cannot raise a new issue undecided by the judgment (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) [v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 62, ECHR 2009]; Hakkar v. France (dec.), no. 43580/04, 7 April 2009; Haase, cited above; Mehemi [v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV]; Rongoni v. Italy, no. 44531/98, § 13, 25 October 2001; Rando v. Italy, no. 38498/97, § 17, 15 February 2000; Leterme v. France, 29 April 1998, Reports 1998-III; Pailot v. France, 22 April 1998, § 57, Reports 1998-II; and Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250) and, as such, form the subject of a new application that may be dealt with by the Court.".

  It therefore finds that the applicant's situation is conceptually different from those in which it has found it justified in the past to examine a continuing violation of a Convention right following adoption of a judgment in which it had previously found a violation of that right with reference to a certain preceding period of time (see, amongst others Ivantoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia, no. 23687/05, §§ 93-96, 15 November 2011 regarding continuing detention; Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, §§ 36-37, 10 April 2008 as to the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment; and Rongoni v. Italy, no. 44531/98, § 13, 25 October 2001, concerning length of proceedings).

 
• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 34323/21

  STEFAN-GABRIEL MOCANU c. ROUMANIE

  Comme la Cour l'a déjà souligné, après l'adoption d'un arrêt constatant qu'un droit a été violé pendant une certaine période, il n'est pas inhabituel que la Cour examine une seconde requête relative à un grief de violation du même droit pendant la période subséquente (voir, entre autres, Ivan?£oc et autres c. Moldova et Russie, no 23687/05, § 87, 15 novembre 2011, au sujet de la prolongation d'une détention, Wasserman c. Russie (no 2), no 21071/05, §§ 36-37, 10 avril 2008, au sujet de l'inexécution d'une décision définitive, et Rongoni c. Italie, no 44531/98, § 13, 25 octobre 2001, au sujet de la durée d'une procédure).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 9644/09

  KAFKARIS v. CYPRUS

  In particular, the Court has stated that the Committee of Ministers" role in this sphere does not mean that measures taken by a respondent State to remedy a violation found by the Court cannot raise a new issue undecided by the judgment (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 62, ECHR 2009-...; Haase, cited above; Hakkar v. France (dec.), no. 43580/04, 7 April 2009; Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV; Rongoni v. Italy, no. 44531/98, § 13, 25 October 2001; Rando v. Italy, no. 38498/97, § 17, 15 February 2000; Pailot v. France, 22 April 1998, § 57, Reports 1998-II; Leterme v. France, 29 April 1998, Reports 1998-III; and Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250) and, as such, form the subject of a new application that may be dealt with by the Court.
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 8000/21

  JURISIC v. CROATIA (No. 2)

  The Court would stress that, in the specific context of a continuing violation of a Convention right following adoption of a judgment in which the Court has found a violation of that right during a certain period of time, it is not unusual for the Court to examine a second application concerning a violation of that right in the subsequent period (see, among other authorities, Ivantoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia, no. 23687/05, §§ 93-96, 15 November 2011, regarding continuing detention; Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, §§ 36-37, 10 April 2008, as to the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment; and Rongoni v. Italy, no. 44531/98, § 13, 25 October 2001, concerning length of proceedings).
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 26290/12

  BURDIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that the present application cannot be a follow-up to the situation examined in the Klaus and Yuri Kiladze case, nor may it relate to the specific context of a continuing violation of a Convention right (see paragraph 32 above and compare and contrast with, for example, Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, §§ 65-68, 26 July 2011, Emre v. Switzerland (no. 2), no. 5056/10, §§ 38-44, 11 October 2011; Rongoni v. Italy, no. 44531/98, §§ 13-16, 25 October 2001, and Ivantoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia, no. 23687/05, §§ 93-96, 15 November 2011).
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 56220/15

  AMIROV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that in the specific context of a continuing violation of a Convention right following adoption of a judgment in which it found a violation of that right during a certain period, it is not unusual for the Court to examine a second application concerning a violation of the same right during the subsequent period (see Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, § 33, 10 April 2008; Rongoni v. Italy, no. 44531/98, § 13, 25 October 2001; and Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV).