Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YABLOKO RUSSIAN UNITED DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-general (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election);No violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-general (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Vote) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  YABLOKO RUSSIAN UNITED DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (18)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18860/07

  The Court reiterates that an individual applicant should be able to claim to be actually affected by the measure of which he complains and that Article 34 may not be used to found an action in the nature of an actio popularis (see, among other authorities, Norris v. Ireland, judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, § 30).
• EGMR, 28.01.2016 - 65480/10

  Fünf-Prozent-Sperrklausel: Keine Ausnahme für "Die Friesen" bei Landtagswahlen

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18860/07

  By means of comparison, the Court has previously rejected complaints about alleged violations of the right to free elections resulting from restrictions on the voting of nationals residing abroad for independent candidates, while in-country nationals could vote both for parties and for independents (see Oran v. Turkey, nos. 28881/07 and 37920/07, §§ 66-67, 15 April 2014); refusing to lower the registration criteria for minority parties (see Partei Die Friesen v. Germany, no. 65480/10, § 43, 28 January 2016), or excluding certain candidates on account of their political affiliation or other status (see Ždanoka, cited above).
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 37083/03

  TEBIETI MÜHAFIZE CEMIYYETI AND ISRAFILOV c. AZERBAIDJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18860/07

  Likewise, it should primarily be up to the association itself and its members, and not the public authorities, to ensure that detailed formalities are observed in the manner specified in its articles of association (see Tebieti Mühafize Cemiyyeti and Israfilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 37083/03, § 78, ECHR 2009, and Republican Party of Russia v. Russia, no. 12976/07, § 88, 12 April 2011).

• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 56618/00

  FEDERACION NACIONALISTA CANARIA contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18860/07

  It reiterates, nevertheless, that the free expression of the opinion of the people is inconceivable without the participation of a plurality of political parties representing the different shades of opinion to be found within a country's population (see Federación Nacionalista Canaria v. Spain (dec.), no. 56618/00, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 55066/00

  RUSSIAN CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF ENTREPRENEURS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18860/07

  The fourth applicant submitted that "the free expression of the opinion of the people is inconceivable without the participation of a plurality of political parties representing the different shades of opinion to be found within a country's population, and therefore regard must be had to the broader context in which the right to vote is exercised" (citing the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v. Russia, nos. 55066/00 and 55638/00, § 79, 11 January 2007).
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 28881/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18860/07

  By means of comparison, the Court has previously rejected complaints about alleged violations of the right to free elections resulting from restrictions on the voting of nationals residing abroad for independent candidates, while in-country nationals could vote both for parties and for independents (see Oran v. Turkey, nos. 28881/07 and 37920/07, §§ 66-67, 15 April 2014); refusing to lower the registration criteria for minority parties (see Partei Die Friesen v. Germany, no. 65480/10, § 43, 28 January 2016), or excluding certain candidates on account of their political affiliation or other status (see Ždanoka, cited above).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18860/07

  39496/14 and 39727/14, § 53, 26 April 2016; Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 102, ECHR 2014; and Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21727/08, 20 January 2009).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18860/07

  However, having regard to the preparatory work to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and the interpretation of the provision in the context of the Convention as a whole, the Court has established that this provision also implies individual rights, including the right to vote and to stand for election (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, §§ 46-51, Series A no. 113, and Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 102, ECHR 2006-IV).
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 10226/03

  Yumak und Sadak ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18860/07

  The word "choice" means that the different political parties must be ensured a reasonable opportunity to present their candidates at elections (see Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC], no. 10226/03, § 108, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 46726/99

  PODKOLZINA c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18860/07

  The Court reaffirms that the margin in this area is wide (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, § 52; Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II; and Yumak and Sadak, cited above, § 109 (ii)).
• EGMR, 19.01.2006 - 59491/00

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 41561/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 21727/08

  POST v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 18705/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 3896/04

  RYABOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 2140/13

  N.Z. v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 13.04.2006 - 45963/99

  TSONEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 39496/14

  N. AND M. v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.11.2019 - 54893/18

  ZEVNIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  The applicants, on the other hand, have not submitted any domestic court decision supporting their own interpretation of the relevant electoral rules or in any other way convincingly argued that the domestic law was vague, the consequences of non-compliance with the rules on gender representation unforeseeable and the application of domestic law in their case arbitrary (compare and contrast Yabloko Russian United Democratic Party and Others v. Russia, no. 18860/07, § 81, 8 November 2016).
• EGMR, 25.06.2025 - 43651/22

  KOVAČEVIĆ c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Elle est parvenue à la même conclusion dans l'affaire Yabloko Russian United Democratic Party et autres c. Russie (no 18860/07, §§ 86-92, 8 novembre 2016), dans le contexte de griefs similaires soulevés sous l'angle de l'article 3 du Protocole no 1, pris isolément ou combiné avec l'article 14 de la Convention.
• EGMR, 11.06.2024 - 55159/16

  KOKEDHIMA v. ALBANIA

  Rn. 51 The Court reiterates that, unlike other provisions of the Convention, the text of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention does not contain an express reference to the "lawfulness" of any measures taken by the State (see Yabloko Russian United Democratic Party and Others v. Russia, no. 18860/07, § 75, 8 November 2016).

• EGMR, 04.08.2020 - 5113/15

  POLITICAL PARTY "PATRIA" v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA and 17 other applications

  The Court notes that the annulment of the party's registration constituted an interference both with the rights of the party and of the individual applicants under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see Yabloko Russian United Democratic Party and Others v. Russia, no. 18860/07, § 74, 8 November 2016).
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 8513/11

  ABIL v. AZERBAIJAN (No.2)

  This principle entails a duty on the part of the State to put in place a legislative framework for securing its obligations under the Convention in general and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in particular (see Karimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 12535/06, § 42, 25 September 2014; Paunović and Milivojević v. Serbia, no. 41683/06, § 61, 24 May 2016; and Yabloko Russian United Democratic Party and Others v. Russia, no. 18860/07, § 75, 8 November 2016).
• EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 56354/07

  [ENG]

  The general principles established in the Court's case-law regarding Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have been summarised in Tahirov v. Azerbaijan, no. 31953/11, §§ 53-57, 11 June 2015; Yabloko Russian United Democratic Party and Others v. Russia, no. 18860/07, §§ 65-71, 8 November 2016; Davydov and Others, cited above, §§ 271-77; and Mugemangango v. Belgium [GC], no. 310/15, §§ 67-73, 10 July 2020.