Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VENIAMIN TYMOSHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim) Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Veniamin Tymoshenko and Others v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TYMOSHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 48408/12

  The law should be accessible to the persons concerned and formulated with sufficient precision to enable them - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see, for example, Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 01.04.2004 - 50357/99

  CAMBERROW MM5 AD v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 48408/12

  However, given the nature of the right at stake here and the particularities of the strike committee's status and functions, it would be inappropriate to draw any parallels between the situation at hand and property-related disputes involving corporate entities, in the context of which the above principle was established (in addition to the case of Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano, cited above, see, for other examples, Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, § 66, Series A no. 330-A, and Camberrow MM5 AD v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 50357/99, 1 April 2004).
• EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

  CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 48408/12

  The Court does not lose sight of its case-law that a person cannot complain of a violation of his or her rights in proceedings to which he or she was not a party, even if he or she was a shareholder and/or director of a company which was party to the proceedings (see Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, §§ 92 and 93, ECHR 2012).

 
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11

  VYERENTSOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 48408/12

  It is remarkable that, although the Resolution of Labour Disputes Act provides in its Final Provisions that other laws and regulations should be applicable only in the part which does not contradict that Act, and that they should be brought into compliance with it, the Transport Act nonetheless has so far continued to apply without amendment for the sixteen or so years since the Resolution of Labour Disputes Act entered into force in 1998 (see, by comparison, Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, § 55, 11 April 2013).
• EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 31045/10

  THE NATIONAL UNION OF RAIL, MARITIME AND TRANSPORT WORKERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 48408/12

  Having regard to its case-law illustrating that strike action is clearly protected by Article 11 (see National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v. the United Kingdom, no. 31045/10, § 84, 8 April 2014, with further references), the Court sees no reasons for holding otherwise.
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 48408/12

  The Court reiterates that the word "victim" in the context of Article 34 of the Convention denotes the person directly affected by the act or omission in issue (see Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 34, Series A no. 238).