Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KARASTELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  NCHR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 5 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 31684/05

  BARRACO c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10

  It is also pertinent to reiterate, in view of the context being examined in the present case, that protests, including actions taking the form of physically impeding certain activities, can constitute expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention (see Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 92, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 28, ECHR 1999-VIII; Lucas v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39013/02, 18 March 2003; Açik and Others v. Turkey, no. 31451/03, § 40, 13 January 2009; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, §§ 69-71, 15 May 2014; and S?‚omka v. Poland, no. 68924/12, § 58, 6 December 2018; see also Chorherr v. Austria, 25 August 1993, §§ 7-8 and 23, Series A no. 266-B; Barraco v. France, no. 31684/05, §§ 26-27, 5 March 2009; and Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 20-22 and 85-86, ECHR 2015).

  The case of Barraco v. France (no. 31684/05, 5 March 2009), which also concerned a demonstration on a motorway, likewise ended with a finding of no violation of Article 10. As it is summarised in the Information Note of the Court published on HUDOC, the case related to Article 11 § 1 on freedom of peaceful assembly.

• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

  CHORHERR v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10

  It is also pertinent to reiterate, in view of the context being examined in the present case, that protests, including actions taking the form of physically impeding certain activities, can constitute expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention (see Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 92, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 28, ECHR 1999-VIII; Lucas v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39013/02, 18 March 2003; Açik and Others v. Turkey, no. 31451/03, § 40, 13 January 2009; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, §§ 69-71, 15 May 2014; and S?‚omka v. Poland, no. 68924/12, § 58, 6 December 2018; see also Chorherr v. Austria, 25 August 1993, §§ 7-8 and 23, Series A no. 266-B; Barraco v. France, no. 31684/05, §§ 26-27, 5 March 2009; and Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 20-22 and 85-86, ECHR 2015).

  In the case of Chorherr v. Austria (25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-B), the Court also concluded that there had been no violation of Article 10. A military ceremony was held in the Rathausplatz in Vienna to mark the thirtieth anniversary of Austrian neutrality and the fortieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War.

• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 57818/09

  LASHMANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10

  Judicial review 42. For a summary of the applicable legislative provisions and judicial practice in relation to judicial review under Chapter 25 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure ("the CCP"), see Roman Zakharov v. Russia ([GC], no. 47143/06, §§ 92-100, ECHR 2015), and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia (nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 276-88, 7 February 2017).

  In this connection the Court refers to its findings under Article 13 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 11, in Lashmankin and Others v. Russia (nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, § 356, 7 February 2017), which also concerned the same type of judicial review procedure under Chapter 25 of the CCP.

 
• EGMR, 18.03.2003 - 39013/02

  LUCAS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10

  It is also pertinent to reiterate, in view of the context being examined in the present case, that protests, including actions taking the form of physically impeding certain activities, can constitute expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention (see Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 92, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 28, ECHR 1999-VIII; Lucas v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39013/02, 18 March 2003; Açik and Others v. Turkey, no. 31451/03, § 40, 13 January 2009; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, §§ 69-71, 15 May 2014; and S?‚omka v. Poland, no. 68924/12, § 58, 6 December 2018; see also Chorherr v. Austria, 25 August 1993, §§ 7-8 and 23, Series A no. 266-B; Barraco v. France, no. 31684/05, §§ 26-27, 5 March 2009; and Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 20-22 and 85-86, ECHR 2015).

  In the case of Lucas v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 39013/02, 18 March 2003) the Court found the application inadmissible under Article 10 and Article 11 as being manifestly ill-founded.

• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

  Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10

  Furthermore, even in the absence of any actual penalty or the like, an individual may nevertheless argue that a law breaches his or her rights in the absence of a specific instance of enforcement, and thus claim to be a "victim", within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, if he or she is required either to modify his or her conduct or risk being prosecuted, or if he or she is a member of a category of persons who risk being directly affected by the legislation (see S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, §§ 57 and 110, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

  EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10

  Judicial review 42. For a summary of the applicable legislative provisions and judicial practice in relation to judicial review under Chapter 25 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure ("the CCP"), see Roman Zakharov v. Russia ([GC], no. 47143/06, §§ 92-100, ECHR 2015), and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia (nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 276-88, 7 February 2017).
• EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05

  TARANENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10

  It is also pertinent to reiterate, in view of the context being examined in the present case, that protests, including actions taking the form of physically impeding certain activities, can constitute expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention (see Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 92, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 28, ECHR 1999-VIII; Lucas v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39013/02, 18 March 2003; Açik and Others v. Turkey, no. 31451/03, § 40, 13 January 2009; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, §§ 69-71, 15 May 2014; and S?‚omka v. Poland, no. 68924/12, § 58, 6 December 2018; see also Chorherr v. Austria, 25 August 1993, §§ 7-8 and 23, Series A no. 266-B; Barraco v. France, no. 31684/05, §§ 26-27, 5 March 2009; and Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 20-22 and 85-86, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 15449/09

  MARGULEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10

  Thus, although the second applicant was not found personally liable or placed under a threat of any penalty, in the circumstances of the present case the caution and order procedures did amount to "interferences" with her freedom of expression (compare with Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, §§ 92-93, ECHR 2012, and Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, §§ 36-38, 8 October 2019).
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 68924/12

  SLOMKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10

  It is also pertinent to reiterate, in view of the context being examined in the present case, that protests, including actions taking the form of physically impeding certain activities, can constitute expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention (see Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 92, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 28, ECHR 1999-VIII; Lucas v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39013/02, 18 March 2003; Açik and Others v. Turkey, no. 31451/03, § 40, 13 January 2009; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, §§ 69-71, 15 May 2014; and S?‚omka v. Poland, no. 68924/12, § 58, 6 December 2018; see also Chorherr v. Austria, 25 August 1993, §§ 7-8 and 23, Series A no. 266-B; Barraco v. France, no. 31684/05, §§ 26-27, 5 March 2009; and Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 20-22 and 85-86, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 31451/03

  AÇIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 16435/10

  It is also pertinent to reiterate, in view of the context being examined in the present case, that protests, including actions taking the form of physically impeding certain activities, can constitute expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention (see Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 92, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 28, ECHR 1999-VIII; Lucas v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39013/02, 18 March 2003; Açik and Others v. Turkey, no. 31451/03, § 40, 13 January 2009; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, §§ 69-71, 15 May 2014; and S?‚omka v. Poland, no. 68924/12, § 58, 6 December 2018; see also Chorherr v. Austria, 25 August 1993, §§ 7-8 and 23, Series A no. 266-B; Barraco v. France, no. 31684/05, §§ 26-27, 5 March 2009; and Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 20-22 and 85-86, ECHR 2015).

• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 31172/19

  JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES v. FINLAND

  By extension, this also applied to the privacy rights of individual adherents guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, particularly where those privacy rights were inextricably linked to the exercise of a religious belief or practice as in the present case (reference was made to Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania, no. 41288/15, §§ 78-81, 14 January 2020; Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, §§ 37-39, ECHR 2004-III; and Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, §§ 72 and 75, 6 October 2020).
• EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 67200/12

  BODALEV v. RUSSIA

  Protests can constitute expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article 10 (see Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 70, 15 May 2014, and Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, § 88, 6 October 2020 and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 14879/20

  DURUKAN ET BIROL c. TÜRKIYE

  L'existence de garanties procédurales suffisantes peut être particulièrement pertinente, compte tenu, dans une certaine mesure au moins et parmi d'autres facteurs, de la nature et de l'ampleur de l'ingérence en question (Karastelev et autres c. Russie, no 16435/10, § 79, 6 octobre 2020).

 
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 13918/06

  SAVENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  45044/06 and 5 others, §§ 87 and 117, 12 December 2017; and Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, § 51, 6 October 2020).
• EGMR, 18.07.2023 - 26360/19

  MANOLE c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Tout en exprimant ses réserves quant à l'étendue du pouvoir du CSM de choisir la procédure, et implicitement ses garanties et garde-fous, par le biais de laquelle un même comportement - à savoir la communication d'informations par un juge en méconnaissance des dispositions susmentionnées - pouvait être examiné et sanctionné, la Cour considère que la question des garanties procédurales et celle de la seule sanction disponible en droit interne infligée aux juges qui auraient méconnu ces dispositions concernent essentiellement la proportionnalité de la mesure litigieuse et qu'il sera plus approprié de les examiner à ce titre (voir, mutatis mutandis, Kudeshkina, précité, § 81, et Tebieti Mühafize Cemiyyeti et Israfilov c. Azerbaijan, no 37083/03, § 63, CEDH 2009 ; comparer avec Karastelev et autres c. Russie, no 16435/10, §§ 79, 91 et suiv., 6 octobre 2020).
• EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 10794/12

  GIULIANO GERMANO v. ITALY

  In the light of the foregoing, and taking into account the content of the obligations imposed on the applicant (see paragraph 10 above), the Court cannot accept the Government's argument that the imposition of the measure in issue did not actually have an impact on the applicant's right to private and family life as, at the very least, it had a chilling effect on the exercise of those rights (see, mutatis mutandis, Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, § 71, 6 October 2020, and S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, §§ 57 and 110, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 44652/18

  PONTA c. ROUMANIE

  Pareille ingérence enfreint l'article 10 si elle n'est pas « prévue par la loi ", dirigée vers un but légitime au regard du paragraphe 2 de cette disposition et « nécessaire dans une société démocratique'pour l'atteindre (voir, entre autres, Selahattin Demirtas c. Turquie (no 2) [GC], no 14305/17, § 248, 22 décembre 2020 ; Karastelev et autres c. Russie, no 16435/10, § 77, 6 octobre 2020 ; et Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy et Satamedia Oy c. Finlande [GC], no 931/13, § 141, 27 juin 2017).