Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ILETMIS c. TURQUIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6-1 Violation de l'art. 8 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ILETMIS v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 8 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 29871/96

  The Court has dealt on many occasions with cases raising issues similar to those raised in this case, and found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12313/86

  MOUSTAQUIM c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 29871/96

  Sufficiently close personal ties existed for there to have been a risk that they would be seriously affected by the confiscation measure (see, mutatis mutandis, Moustaquim v. Belgium, judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 193, p. 18, § 36; Dalia v. France, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, p. 91, § 52; and Amrollahi v. Denmark, no. 56811/00, § 33, 11 July 2002).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 07.09.2023 - C-128/22

  NORDIC INFO - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Freizügigkeit - Nationale Maßnahmen …

  Vgl. u. a. EGMR, 6. Dezember 2005, 11etmis/Türkei (CE:ECHR:2005:1206JUD002987196, § 47).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29713/05

  STAMOSE v. BULGARIA

  However, in view of the finding of a breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the travel ban imposed on the applicant also by reference to Article 8 of the Convention (see Riener, § 134; A.E. v. Poland, §§ 53-54; and Pfeifer, § 62, all cited above; and contrast Ä°letmis v. Turkey, no. 29871/96, §§ 42-50, ECHR 2005-XII, and PasaoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 8932/03, §§ 41-48, 8 July 2008, where the Court examined prohibitions on travel abroad under Article 8 of the Convention and not under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 because the latter had been signed but not ratified by Turkey).
• EGMR, 21.03.2023 - 66763/17

  TELEK ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE

  Appréciation de la Cour 91. En ce qui concerne l'exception tirée de l'incompatibilité ratione materiae, la Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà eu l'occasion de constater que le retrait d'un passeport peut soulever des questions sérieuses au regard du droit d'un individu au respect de sa vie privée et familiale (M. c. Suisse, no 41199/06, § 38, 26 avril 2011) et qu'elle a déjà examiné une telle mesure sous l'angle de l'article 8 de la Convention (Iletmi?Ÿ c. Turquie, no 29871/96, §§ 38-50, CEDH 2005-XII, Pa?Ÿaoglu c. Turquie, no 8932/03, §§ 35-48, 8 juillet 2008 et Kotiy c. Ukraine, no 28718/09, §§ 57-76, 5 mars 2015).

 
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 22429/07

  PARMAK AND BAKIR v. TURKEY

  Moreover, the Court has examined similar complaints under Article 8 of the Convention by having regard to the fact that freedom of movement, particularly across borders, is considered essential to the full development of a person's private life, especially when he or she has family, professional and economic ties in several countries ( see Iletmis v. Turkey, no. 29871/96, § 50, ECHR 2005-XII; Pasaoglu v. Turkey, no. 8932/03, §§ 42-43, 8 July 2008; see also, mutatis mutandis, Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 134, 23 May 2006, and Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, §§ 59-62, 17 February 2011).
• EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 42419/04

  POGREBNYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes that the seizure of documents needed often in everyday life to prove one's identity, such as a passport, constitutes an interference with private life (see, for instance, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 95-97, 24 July 2003, and Iletmi?Ÿ v. Turkey, no. 29871/96, §§ 42-43, 6 December 2005).
• EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 41199/06

  M. c. SUISSE

  De surcroît, la Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà eu l'occasion de constater que la confiscation et la non restitution d'un passeport peut soulever des questions sérieuses au regard du droit d'un individu au respect de sa vie privée et familiale (Iletmis c. Turquie, no 29871/96, § 42, et Smirnova c. Russie, no 46133/99 et 48183/99, §§ 95-97, CEDH 2003-IX ; voir également, pour deux affaires examinées par la Cour sous l'angle de la liberté de circulation au sens de l'article 2 du Protocole no 4 (non ratifié par la Suisse), Bartik c. Russie, no 55565/00, CEDH 2006-XV, et Napijalo c. Croatie, no 66485/01, 13 novembre 2003).
• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 32318/05

  POTAPENKO v. HUNGARY

  The Court reiterates that, even where a restriction on the individual's freedom of movement was initially warranted, maintaining it automatically over a lengthy period of time may become a disproportionate measure, violating the individual's rights (see Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 121, 23 May 2006; Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, ECHR 2003-IX; and, mutatis mutandis, Ä°letmis v. Turkey, no. 29871/96, ECHR 2005-XII).
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 8932/03

  PASAOGLU c. TURQUIE

  La Cour a ainsi eu l'occasion d'affirmer qu'à une époque où la liberté de circulation, et en particulier la liberté de circulation transfrontalière, est considérée comme essentielle pour l'épanouissement de la vie privé surtout lorsqu'il s'agit de personnes ayant des liens familiaux ancrés dans plusieurs pays, le fait de refuser cette liberté sans aucune motivation à une personne relevant de sa juridiction constitue, pour un Etat, un manquement grave à ses obligations (voir Ä°letmis c. Turquie, no 29871/96, § 50, CEDH 2005-...).
• EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 24733/04

  PFEIFER v. BULGARIA

  However, having regard to the reasons for which it found a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, the Court does not consider it necessary to also examine the travel ban by reference to Article 8 (see Riener, § 134, and A.E. v. Poland, §§ 53 and 54, both cited above, and contrast Ä°letmis v. Turkey, no. 29871/96, §§ 42-50, ECHR 2005-XII, and PasaoÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 8932/03, §§ 41-48, 8 July 2008, where the Court examined prohibitions to travel abroad under Article 8 of the Convention and not under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 because the latter had been signed but not ratified by Turkey).
• EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 41463/02

  FOLDES AND FOLDESNE HAJLIK v. HUNGARY

  The Court reiterates that, even where a restriction on the individual's freedom of movement was initially warranted, maintaining it automatically over a lengthy period of time may become a disproportionate measure, violating the individual's rights (see Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 121, 23 May 2006; Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, ECHR 2003-IX; and, mutatis mutandis, Ä°letmis v. Turkey, no. 29871/96, ECHR 2005-XII).
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 37509/06

  BESSENYEI v. HUNGARY