Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 67816/14, 59793/17, 26238/10, 9106/09, 7203/12, 655/16, 65550/13, 18308/10, 48532/11, 61772/12, 22456/15, 66729/16, 9904/09, 11395/08, 33683/08, 66650/13, 24749/16, 43327/16, 62775/16, 68722/16, 76071/16, 8051/17, 8702/17, 12870/17, 21246/17, 37696/17, 24 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KRYZEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private ...
Sonstiges (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
KRYZEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2 MRK
[ENG] - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
(Sonstiges)
Annonce d"arrêts et décisions 11-13.12.18
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Sonstiges)
Forthcoming judgments and decisions 11-13.12.18
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 67816/14, 59793/17, 26238/10, 9106/09, 7203/12, 655/16, 65550/13, 18308/10, 48532/11, 61772/12, 22456/15, 66729/16, 9904/09, 11395/08, 33683/08, 66650/13, 24749/16, 43327/16, 62775/16, 68722/16, 76071/16, 8051/17, 8702/17, 12870/17, 21246/17, 37696/17, 24
- EGMR, 03.02.2021 - 67816/14
Wird zitiert von ... Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04
Britische DNA-Datenbanken verstoßen gegen die Europäische …
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 67816/14
While it is for the national authorities to make the initial assessment in all these respects, the final evaluation of whether the interference is necessary remains subject to review by the Court for conformity with the requirements of the Convention (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 101, ECHR 2008). - EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 67816/14
The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 114, 20 March 2018), considers that this complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 8 of the Convention, which reads:. - EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 42857/05
Zum Zeugnisverweigerungsrecht - Lebensgefährten dürfen im Strafprozess nicht …
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 67816/14
The Court has previously found that an attempt to compel an individual to give evidence in criminal proceedings against someone with whom that individual had a relationship amounting to family life constituted an interference with his or her right to respect for his or her family life (see Van der Heijden v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 42857/05, § 52, 3 April 2012). - EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 67816/14
While it is for the national authorities to make the initial assessment in all these respects, the final evaluation of whether the interference is necessary remains subject to review by the Court for conformity with the requirements of the Convention (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 101, ECHR 2008).
- EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13
MURSALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN and 10 other applications
The case originated in eleven applications (nos. 66650/13, 24749/16, 43327/16, 62775/16, 68722/16, 76071/16, 8051/17, 8702/17, 12870/17, 21246/17 and 37696/17) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by eleven Azerbaijani nationals ("the applicants"), on various dates (see Appendix).43327/16, 62775/16, 8051/17, 8702/17 and 12870/17 lodged a further complaint, arguing that there had been a hindrance to the exercise of their right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:.
43327/16, 62775/16, 8051/17, 8702/17 and 12870/17, and the material available to it, the Court finds that there is no sufficient factual basis for it to conclude that the authorities of the respondent State have interfered in any way with the applicants' exercise of their right of individual application in the proceedings before the Court in relation to the above-mentioned applications (compare Juhas Đurić v. Serbia, no. 48155/06, § 75, 7 June 2011, and Vasiliy Ivashchenko v. Ukraine, no. 760/03, § 115, 26 July 2012).
76071/16, 8051/17, 8702/17, 12870/17 and 21246/17; EUR 30, 000 in applications nos.
The applicants, except the applicant in application no. 62775/16, each claimed the following amounts for legal services incurred in the proceedings before the domestic courts and the Court: EUR 1, 006 in application no. 66650/13; EUR 3, 200 in application no. 24749/16; EUR 1, 600 in application no. 43327/16; EUR 500 in application no. 68722/16; EUR 3, 180 in application no. 76071/16; EUR 2, 442 in application no. 8051/17; EUR 2, 038 in application no. 8702/17; EUR 2, 023 in application no. 12870/17; EUR 2, 980 in application no. 21246/17; and EUR 2, 209 in application no. 37696/17.
76071/16 and 21246/17 further claimed EUR 370 and 295 respectively for translation costs.
43327/16, 62775/16, 8051/17, 8702/17 and 12870/17;.
8051/17.
12870/17.
21246/17.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".