Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. ET DI STEFANO c. ITALIE
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
Exception préliminaire retenue (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae) Exceptions préliminaires rejetées (Article 35-1 - Délai de six mois) Partiellement irrecevable Violation de l'article 10 - Liberté d'expression-Générale (Article 10-1 - Liberté d'expression) ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
Preliminary objection allowed (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae) Preliminary objections allowed (Article 35-1 - Six month period) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) Violation of ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Preliminary objection allowed (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Six month period);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of ...
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse (3)
- lehofer.at (Kurzinformation und -anmerkung)
Medienvielfalt garantieren oder (bloß) achten? Zum Urteil Centro Europa 7
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
- soros.org (Kurzinformation zum Verfahren - vor Ergehen der Entscheidung)
Centro Europa 7 s.r.l. ./. Italien
(englisch)
Besprechungen u.ä. (2)
- lehofer.at (Entscheidungsbesprechung)
Centro Europa 7: Staatliche Verpflichtung zur Schaffung eines Rechtsrahmens, der effektive Medienvielfalt garantiert
- lehofer.at (Kurzinformation und -anmerkung)
Medienvielfalt garantieren oder (bloß) achten? Zum Urteil Centro Europa 7
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. v. Italy and Di Stefano v. Italy
[12.10.2011]
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[FRE]
Verfahrensgang
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.09.2007 - C-380/05
- EuGH, 31.01.2008 - C-380/05
- EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09
- EGMR, 05.04.2017 - 38433/09
Papierfundstellen
- NVwZ-RR 2014, 48
Wird zitiert von ... (120) Neu Zitiert selbst (58)
- EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 2002/20
CHRYSIKOPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09
That being so, the Consiglio di Stato decided to stay the proceedings and requested the CJEU to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty on freedom to provide services and competition, Directive 2002/21/EC ("the Framework Directive"), Directive 2002/20/EC ("the Authorisation Directive"), Directive 2002/77/EC ("the Competition Directive") and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in so far as Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union referred to it.Article 49 EC and, from the date on which they became applicable, Article 9(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), Article 5(1), the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) and Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), and Article 4 of Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services must be interpreted as precluding, in television broadcasting matters, national legislation the application of which makes it impossible for an operator holding rights to broadcast in the absence of broadcasting radio frequencies granted on the basis of objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria.".
Hopes also that the "system for assigning frequencies" provided for in the draft Gasparri law does not constitute mere legitimisation of the de facto situation and does not conflict, in particular, with Directive 2002/21/EC, Article 7 of 2002/20/EC or Directive 2002/77/EC, which specify, inter alia, that the assigning of radio frequencies for electronic communication services must be based on objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria;.
It notes in this connection that in 2005 the Consiglio di Stato decided to suspend its examination of the applicant company's appeal and asked the CJEU to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty on freedom to provide services and competition, Directive 2002/21/EC ("the Framework Directive"), Directive 2002/20/EC ("the Authorisation Directive"), Directive 2002/77/EC ("the Competition Directive") and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in so far as Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union referred to it (see paragraph 32 above).
- EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 36813/97
SCORDINO c. ITALIE (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09
The Government argued that, having regard to those measures as a whole, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. could not claim to be the victim of the acts of which it complained (citing, mutatis mutandis, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 179, ECHR 2006-V).In the present case the applicant company's intention was to counter the general rule set forth in Lithgow and Others by referring to the rule laid down in Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) ([GC], no. 36813/97, § 103, ECHR 2006-V), Cocchiarella v. Italy ([GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-V) and Musci v. Italy ([GC], no. 64699/01, ECHR 2006-V).
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23536/94
Strafrechtliche Verfolgung auf Grund der Veröffentlichung eines Buches mit …
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09
In particular, a rule is "foreseeable" when it affords a measure of protection against arbitrary interferences by the public authorities (see Tourancheau and July v. France, no. 53886/00, § 54, 24 November 2005) and against the extensive application of a restriction to any party's detriment (see, mutatis mutandis, Baskaya and OkçuoÄŸlu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23536/94 and 24408/94, § 36, ECHR 1999-IV).
- EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 10890/84
GROPPERA RADIO AG ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09
The applicants submitted that in accordance with the Court's case-law (referring to Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, § 41, 11 October 2007, and Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, 28 March 1990, § 49, Series A no. 173), the sole shareholder and statutory representative of a company could also be regarded as a victim of a prohibition on broadcasting. - EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87
PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09
It is therefore unnecessary to introduce the notion of legitimate expectation, which, on the basis of Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland (29 November 1991, Series A no. 222) and Stretch v. the United Kingdom (no. 44277/98, 24 June 2003), applies in a far more limited set of circumstances. - EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 13936/02
MANOLE ET AUTRES c. MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09
It is of the essence of democracy to allow diverse political programmes to be proposed and debated, even those that call into question the way a State is currently organised, provided that they do not harm democracy itself (see Manole and Others v. Moldova, no. 13936/02, § 95, ECHR 2009 (extracts), and Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 41, 45 and 47, Reports 1998-III). - EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 53886/00
TOURANCHEAU ET JULY c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09
In particular, a rule is "foreseeable" when it affords a measure of protection against arbitrary interferences by the public authorities (see Tourancheau and July v. France, no. 53886/00, § 54, 24 November 2005) and against the extensive application of a restriction to any party's detriment (see, mutatis mutandis, Baskaya and OkçuoÄŸlu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23536/94 and 24408/94, § 36, ECHR 1999-IV). - EGMR, 25.09.2007 - 42165/02
HADRABOVA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09
42165/02 and 466/03, 25 September 2007, and Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-27, 2 December 2008). - EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 49429/99
CAPITAL BANK AD v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09
It further notes that, as it has previously held, the withdrawal of a licence to carry on business activities amounts to interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions as enshrined in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, § 53, Series A no. 159; Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 130, ECHR 2005-XII; Rosenzweig and Bonded Warehouses Ltd v. Poland, no. 51728/99, § 49, 28 July 2005; and Bimer S.A. v. Moldova, no. 15084/03, § 49, 10 July 2007). - EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 5667/02
KÉRÉTCHACHVILI c. GEORGIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09
The applicant company had thus neglected to inform the Court of elements in its possession that were essential for the examination of the case (Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, ECHR 2006-V). - EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 24699/94
VgT VEREIN GEGEN TIERFABRIKEN c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74
ARTICO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 31107/96
IATRIDIS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
MELNIK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91
Radikalenerlaß
- EGMR, 15.05.2003 - 72203/01
RISSMANN, HÖLLER et LOTH contre l'ALLEMAGNE
- EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95
DALBAN v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 17621/91
KEMMACHE v. FRANCE (No. 3)
- EGMR, 07.11.2000 - 44802/98
UNITED CHRISTIAN BROADCASTERS LTD v. the UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 44179/98
MURPHY v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
KRUSLIN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88
KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89
JERSILD v. DENMARK
- EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 45291/06
PREVITI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 27250/02
Menschrechtskonvention: Überlange Verfahrensdauer, Zivilrechtsstreit
- EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 30877/02
NOSOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.07.2003 - 34657/97
FORCELLINI c. SAINT-MARIN
- EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84
TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 31443/96
BRONIOWSKI c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98
MAESTRI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 35178/97
ANKARCRONA c. SUEDE
- EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 38743/97
DEMUTH v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74
SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
- EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13914/88
INFORMATIONSVEREIN LENTIA AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
Budweiser-Streit
- EKMR, 12.10.1973 - 5178/71
D.G.P.N.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 46159/99
ROCK RUBY HOTELS LTD v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 32283/04
MELTEX LTD AND MOVSESYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 16.11.2000 - 39676/98
ROJAS MORALES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 21447/03
PREDESCU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98
GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80
LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 2507/03
AMAT-G LTD AND MEBAGISHVILI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 72552/01
Rechtmäßigkeit der Entziehung des im Rahmen der Bodenreform erworbenen …
- EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78
Eckle ./. Deutschland
- EGMR, 23.11.1999 - 35591/97
LEVEQUE contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 26229/95
GAWEDA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 46283/99
ORTOLANI contre l'ITALIE
- EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 14134/02
GLAS NADEZHDA EOOD AND ELENKOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 20.09.2001 - 48470/99
JENSEN contre la DANEMARK
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 21156/93
G.J. v. LUXEMBOURG
- EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95
ROTARU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 37398/97
CDI HOLDING AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79
BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)
- EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 31365/96
VARBANOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97
COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL
- AG Viechtach, 06.03.1991 - F 223/90
- BVerfG, 25.03.2014 - 1 BvF 1/11
ZDF-StV verstößt gegen Gebot der Staatsferne
Nach der Auslegung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte verpflichtet Art. 10 EMRK die Konventionsstaaten, durch gesetzliche Ausgestaltung die Vielfalt im Rundfunk zu gewährleisten und diese Pflicht insbesondere nicht dadurch zu unterwandern, dass eine gewichtige ökonomische oder politische Gruppe oder der Staat eine dominante Position über eine Rundfunkanstalt oder innerhalb einer Rundfunkanstalt einnehmen kann und hierdurch Druck auf die Veranstalter ausüben kann (vgl. EGMR, Manole and Others v. Moldova, no. 13936/02, §§ 95-102; EGMR (GK), Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. u.a. v. Italien, Urteil vom 7. Juni 2012, Nr. 38433/09, NVwZ-RR 2014, S. 48 , §§ 129 ff.; jeweils unter Hinweis auf Entschließungen und Empfehlungen des Ministerkomitees des Europarates). - VerfGH Rheinland-Pfalz, 13.05.2014 - VGH B 35/12
Neuregelung der Rundfunkfinanzierung verfassungsgemäß
Denn es gibt keine Demokratie ohne Pluralismus; die Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung wie auch die Freiheit der Information sind wesentliche Grundpfeiler einer demokratischen Gesellschaft und gehören damit zu den wichtigsten Voraussetzungen für ihre Fortentwicklung (EGMR, Urteile vom 17. Dezember 2009 - Nr. 13936/02, Manole u.a./Moldawien -, §§ 95 ff., und vom 7. Juni 2012 - Nr. 38433/09, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. u. a./Italien -, NVwZ-RR 2014, 48 [52]). - BVerfG, 20.07.2021 - 1 BvR 2756/20
Erfolgreiche Verfassungsbeschwerden zum Ersten Medienänderungsstaatsvertrag
Unter den Medien kommt dem Rundfunk wegen seiner Breitenwirkung, Aktualität und Suggestivkraft besondere Bedeutung zu (vgl. BVerfGE 31, 314 ; 90, 60 ; 97, 228 ; 103, 44 ; 114, 371 ; 136, 9 ; stRspr; zur Bedeutung des Rundfunks in der Demokratie siehe beispielsweise auch EGMR (Große Kammer), Centro Europa 7 S. r. l. u. Di Stefano v. Italy, Urteil vom 7. Juni 2012, Nr. 38433/09, § 129; Conseil Constitutionnel, Entscheidung Nr. 86-217 DC vom 18. September 1986, 11. Erwägungsgrund; Entscheidung Nr. 2009-577 DC vom 3. März 2009, 2. und 3. Erwägungsgrund).
- EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08
Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung
The Court also recalls the principles concerning pluralism in the audiovisual media set out recently in Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v. Italy ([GC], no. 38433/09, ECHR 2012):.A situation whereby a powerful economic or political group in society is permitted to obtain a position of dominance over the audiovisual media and thereby exercise pressure on broadcasters and eventually curtail their editorial freedom undermines the fundamental role of freedom of expression in a democratic society as enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention, in particular where it serves to impart information and ideas of general interest, which the public is moreover entitled to receive (see VgT (cited above), §§ 73 and 75, and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 133, ECHR 2012).
In spite of the adoption in 2001 of the VgT judgment, which the relevant Minister and the majority of the parliamentary bodies recognised as indicating that the prohibition was likely at a subsequent date to be considered incompatible with the Convention, and in spite of the increasing exceptional nature of the contested prohibition in comparison to the rules applied in other Contracting States, the Government were not able to refer to any expert report which examined whether there existed other practical solutions enabling both the scope of the prohibition to be reduced and its objectives to be conserved (see Hatton and Others, cited above, § 128), which consisted, in particular, of guaranteeing genuine pluralism (Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 129-134, ECHR 2012).
- EGMR, 23.05.2016 - 17502/07
AVOTINS c. LETTONIE
The Court cannot itself assess the facts which have led a national court to adopt one decision rather than another; otherwise, it would be acting as a court of fourth instance and would disregard the limits imposed on its action (see Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 197, ECHR 2012). - EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 22947/13
News-Portal: Keine Haftung für Nutzerkommentare
As the Court has previously held, the level of precision required of domestic legislation - which cannot provide for every eventuality - depends to a considerable degree on the content of the law in question, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 142, ECHR 2012). - EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 931/13
SATAKUNNAN MARKKINAPÖRSSI OY AND SATAMEDIA OY v. FINLAND
Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague, and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice (see further Delfi AS, cited above, § 121; and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 141, ECHR 2012). - EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 18766/11
Italien muß Rechtsrahmen für gleichgeschlechtliche Lebensgemeinschaft schaffen
The Court has however also established that omissions on the part of the authorities may also constitute "continuous activities by or on the part of the State" (see, for example, Vasilescu v. Romania, 22 May 1998, § 49, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III concerning a judgment preventing the applicant from regaining possession of her property; Sabin Popescu v. Romania, no. 48102/99, § 51, 2 March 2004 concerning a parent's inability to regain parental rights; Iordache v. Romania, no. 6817/02, § 66, 14 October 2008; and Hadzhigeorgievi v. Bulgaria, no. 41064/05, §§ 56-57, 16 July 2013, both concerning nonenforcement of judgments, as well as, by implication, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 104, ECHR 2012, concerning the inability to broadcast television programmes). - EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
DE TOMMASO v. ITALY
The Court reiterates its settled case-law, according to which the expression "in accordance with law" not only requires that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the persons concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see Khlyustov, cited above, § 68; X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 58, ECHR 2013; Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 140, ECHR 2012; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; and Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I). - EuG, 27.07.2022 - T-125/22
Auswärtige Beziehungen
Diese Voraussetzungen entsprechen im Wesentlichen jenen, die der EGMR in seiner Rechtsprechung aufgestellt hat; danach muss ein Eingriff in das Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung im Licht von Art. 10 Abs. 2 der EMRK "gesetzlich vorgesehen" sein, eines oder mehrere der in dieser Vorschrift aufgezählten legitimen Ziele verfolgen und für deren Erreichung "in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft erforderlich" sein (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 7. Juni 2012, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. und Di Stefano/Italien, CE:ECHR:2012:0607JUD003843309, § 135). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 18.12.2019 - C-719/18
Generalanwalt Campos Sánchez-Bordona schlägt dem Gerichtshof vor, die …
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.02.2024 - C-633/22
Real Madrid Club de Fútbol - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle …
- EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13
KARÁCSONY ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE
- EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 67810/10
GROSS v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 17895/14
EVERS v. GERMANY
- VG Schleswig, 05.06.2019 - 4 A 123/16
Unionsrechtskonforme Anwendung von RBStV § 4 Abs 1 Nr 5 Buchst a, Abs 6 S 1
- EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 66529/11
N.K.M. v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 58630/11
LJASKAJ v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 12.03.2014 - 26828/06
KURIC ET AUTRES c. SLOVÉNIE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 19.03.2015 - C-398/13
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami u.a. / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Verordnung (EU) Nr. …
- EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 53413/11
SIK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 41269/08
SCHMID-LAFFER c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13
BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 11882/10
PENTIKÄINEN c. FINLANDE
- EGMR, 22.12.2015 - 28601/11
G.S.B. c. SUISSE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 28.03.2019 - C-171/18
Safeway - Art. 157 AEUV und gleiches Entgelt für männliche und weibliche …
- EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 8895/10
ÄRZTEKAMMER FÜR WIEN AND DORNER v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 38270/11
NEDIM SENER c. TURQUIE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.05.2020 - C-30/19
Braathens Regional Aviation - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Richtlinie …
- EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 54145/10
ERLA HLYNSDÓTTIR v. ICELAND (No. 3)
- EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 67259/14
SELMANI AND OTHERS v.
- EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 49849/08
TRUCKENBRODT v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 41838/11
R.Sz. v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 38369/09
SCHIPANI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 49570/11
GÁLL v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02
DÖNER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 70945/11
MAGYAR KERESZTÉNY MENNONITA EGYHÁZ AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 48408/12
VENIAMIN TYMOSHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 44460/16
O'SULLIVAN McCARTHY MUSSEL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 65681/13
VÉKONY v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 04.06.2015 - 44262/10
MORENO DIAZ PEÑA ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 31150/09
ERFAR-AVEF c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 23.01.2014 - 19336/04
EAST WEST ALLIANCE LIMITED v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 68939/12
CEROVSEK AND BOZICNIK v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 23912/12
VALANT v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 14946/08
MESUT YURTSEVER ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 1660/03
PLECHKOV c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 67503/13
KOPRIVNIKAR v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 56903/10
BUDIVELNO INVESTYTSIYNA GRUPA 1 v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 7318/09
C.M. c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 23465/03
AGROKOMPLEKS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 27122/14
SPASOV c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 43041/02
SAMANTHA IMMOBILIARE S.R.L. ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10
HUSEYNOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08
ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 24221/13
CARMEL SALIBA v. MALTA
- EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 30255/09
BITTÓ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 4944/11
MILHAU c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 28975/05
KHLYUSTOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 55517/14
VILCHES CORONADO ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 08.03.2018 - 27662/09
KANAGINIS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 19258/07
DÖNMEZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 24042/09
CEREALE FLOR S.A. AND ROSCA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 37462/09
ZAJA v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 37289/12
J.N. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 66850/12
OJCZYK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 21371/10
YAVUZ ÖZDEN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 36363/18
ARSLANBAS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 5046/07
MAHARRAMOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 78388/12
MOLGA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 42079/12
B.K.M. LOJISTIK TASIMACILIK TICARET LIMITED SIRKETI v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 29483/09
SEMIR GÜZEL v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 3330/12
JGK STATYBA LTD v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 35745/05
NENKOVA-LALOVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 31.01.2023 - 1210/10
SORBALO c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 24085/11
DE VINCENZO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 23.11.2021 - 37677/16
ABDULLIN c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 45340/18
ÖZYÜREK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 16627/10
MASLOTSOV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 55698/14
BABCHIN c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE
- EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 19382/08
LYKIN v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 23620/05
POLIMERKONTEYNER, TOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 50811/10
BARCZA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 33172/05
FRISOLI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR - 40122/20 (anhängig)
ALACA c. TÜRKIYE et 16 autres affaires
- EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 11678/18
BELYKH c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 19.11.2018 - 56729/12
SHILOVA c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 8967/14
ABDURZAKOV ET TIMOFEYEVA c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 43826/05
CATALAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 4255/07
DIBIROV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 39214/12
ÖZEVIN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.11.2016 - 24902/11
CABALLERO RAMIREZ c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 28648/06
TURTURICA AND CASIAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 15193/12
IBRIS c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 54619/11
YIGIT c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 39863/11
ÜNSAL c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 28617/10
PATRIKIOS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 9050/06
YILDIZ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 46661/12
MUGLIETT v. MALTA
- EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 2998/08
PARATHERISTIKOS OIKODOMIKOS SYNETAIRISMOS STEGASEOS YPALLILON TRAPEZIS TIS …
- EGMR - 48380/10 (anhängig)
RADYO BOYLAM YAYiNCiLiK TANiTiM SAN. VE TIC. A.S. c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 21969/15
NEAGU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 05.05.2020 - 84447/17
LITVINENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 3445/13
NEGRUTA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE
- EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 15641/04
NAFTULE v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 49734/12
V.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 07.07.2016 - 4322/06
ZOSYMOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 43822/15
TZOUVALOPOULOU c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 29076/15
REÏZAKIS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 23521/15
SYNDICATS DES FONCTIONNAIRES DE POLICE DE XANTHI ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 29.09.2015 - 10646/08
KOTURENKA v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 11993/05
QESKA v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 21718/05
ZENELI v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 16248/10
ANTTILA v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 3453/06
ZHELEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 966/14
PARTNERS 2000 KFT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 08.03.2016 - 37210/04
BAYAR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 46626/13
HODOROG v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 68053/10
LOLOVA AND POPOVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 32328/09
PALAZZOLO v. ITALY