Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SITAROPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Violation de P1-3 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SITAROPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

  Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of P1-3 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 42202/07
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 42202/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 42202/07

  We would like to repeat here the partly dissenting opinion of Judges Spielmann and Malinverni (paragraphs 7-9) annexed to the judgment in Prezec v. Croatia (no. 48185/07, 15 October 2009) and reiterated in the partly dissenting opinion of the same judges (paragraph 4) annexed to the judgment in Alfantakis v. Greece (no. 49330/07, 11 February 2010), which refer to the partly dissenting opinion of Judge Bonello annexed to the Grand Chamber judgment in Aquilina v. Malta ([GC], no. 25642/94, ECHR 1999-III).

  But can one really consider that the mere finding of a violation of a fundamental right can possibly afford redress (see Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, ECHR1999-III, dissenting opinion of Judge Bonello)?".

• EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 31981/96

  HILBE contre le LIECHTENSTEIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 42202/07

  In particular, the Court has found that domestic legislation imposing a minimum age or residence requirements for the exercise of the right to vote is, in principle, compatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 62, ECHR 2005-IX, and Hilbe v. Lichtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI).

  Moreover, as repeated by the Court on several occasions, having to satisfy a residence requirement in order to have or exercise the right to vote in parliamentary elections is not an unreasonable or arbitrary restriction of the right to vote and is therefore not incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. (see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 62, ECHR 2005-IX; Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 56, ECHR 2004-X; Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI; Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no. 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR) 90-A; Luksch v. Germany, application no. 35385/97, Commission decision of 21 May 1997, DR 89-B, p. 175; X and Association Y v. Italy, application no. 8987/80, Commission decision of 6 May 1981, DR 24, p. 192; and X v. the United Kingdom, application no. 7730/76, Commission decision of 28 February 1979, DR 15, p. 137).

• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 42202/07

  The Court points out first of all that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 enshrines a characteristic principle of an effective political democracy, and is accordingly of prime importance in the Convention system (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, § 47, Series A no. 113).

  States Parties enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in the choice and organisation of their respective electoral systems as Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 does not create any "obligation to introduce a specific system" (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, § 54, Series A no. 113).

 
• EKMR, 06.05.1981 - 8987/80

  X. ET ASSOCIATION c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 42202/07

  It also differs from X. and Association Y. v. Italy (no. 8987/80, Commission decision of 6 May 1981, Decisions and Reports 24, p. 195), where the Commission concluded that the obligation to exercise the right to vote on national territory did not amount to a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. Unlike in the aforementioned case, the Court notes that in the present case a constitutional provision, namely Article 51 § 4 of the Greek Constitution, exists and authorises the legislature to determine the conditions for exercising the right to vote.

  Moreover, as repeated by the Court on several occasions, having to satisfy a residence requirement in order to have or exercise the right to vote in parliamentary elections is not an unreasonable or arbitrary restriction of the right to vote and is therefore not incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. (see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 62, ECHR 2005-IX; Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 56, ECHR 2004-X; Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI; Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no. 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR) 90-A; Luksch v. Germany, application no. 35385/97, Commission decision of 21 May 1997, DR 89-B, p. 175; X and Association Y v. Italy, application no. 8987/80, Commission decision of 6 May 1981, DR 24, p. 192; and X v. the United Kingdom, application no. 7730/76, Commission decision of 28 February 1979, DR 15, p. 137).

• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 42202/07

  [1] Concerning the lack of reasoning, we cannot resist the temptation of quoting a particularly eloquent passage from the partly dissenting opinion of Judge Bonello annexed to the judgment in Aquilina v. Malta: "The first time the Court appears to have resorted to this hapless formula was in the Golder case of 1975 (Golder v. United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18).
• EKMR, 15.09.1997 - 23450/94

  POLACCO ET GAROFALO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 42202/07

  Moreover, as repeated by the Court on several occasions, having to satisfy a residence requirement in order to have or exercise the right to vote in parliamentary elections is not an unreasonable or arbitrary restriction of the right to vote and is therefore not incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. (see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 62, ECHR 2005-IX; Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 56, ECHR 2004-X; Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI; Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no. 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR) 90-A; Luksch v. Germany, application no. 35385/97, Commission decision of 21 May 1997, DR 89-B, p. 175; X and Association Y v. Italy, application no. 8987/80, Commission decision of 6 May 1981, DR 24, p. 192; and X v. the United Kingdom, application no. 7730/76, Commission decision of 28 February 1979, DR 15, p. 137).
• EKMR, 21.05.1997 - 35385/97

  LUKSCH contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 42202/07

  Moreover, as repeated by the Court on several occasions, having to satisfy a residence requirement in order to have or exercise the right to vote in parliamentary elections is not an unreasonable or arbitrary restriction of the right to vote and is therefore not incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. (see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 62, ECHR 2005-IX; Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 56, ECHR 2004-X; Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI; Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no. 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR) 90-A; Luksch v. Germany, application no. 35385/97, Commission decision of 21 May 1997, DR 89-B, p. 175; X and Association Y v. Italy, application no. 8987/80, Commission decision of 6 May 1981, DR 24, p. 192; and X v. the United Kingdom, application no. 7730/76, Commission decision of 28 February 1979, DR 15, p. 137).
• EKMR, 28.02.1979 - 7730/76

  X. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 42202/07

  Moreover, as repeated by the Court on several occasions, having to satisfy a residence requirement in order to have or exercise the right to vote in parliamentary elections is not an unreasonable or arbitrary restriction of the right to vote and is therefore not incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. (see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 62, ECHR 2005-IX; Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 56, ECHR 2004-X; Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI; Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no. 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR) 90-A; Luksch v. Germany, application no. 35385/97, Commission decision of 21 May 1997, DR 89-B, p. 175; X and Association Y v. Italy, application no. 8987/80, Commission decision of 6 May 1981, DR 24, p. 192; and X v. the United Kingdom, application no. 7730/76, Commission decision of 28 February 1979, DR 15, p. 137).
• EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 66289/01

  PY v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 42202/07

  For the purposes of applying Article 3 of the Protocol, any electoral legislation must be assessed in the light of the political evolution of the country concerned, so that features that would be unacceptable in the context of one system may be justified in the context of another (see Py v. France, no. 66289/01, § 46, ECHR 2005-I (extracts)), at least so long as the chosen system provides for conditions which will ensure the "free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature".
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 42202/07

  The Convention and the Protocols thereto must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions (see Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, § 31, Series A no. 26) and the Convention is designed to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (see Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 81, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 49330/07

  ALFANTAKIS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 48185/07

  PREZEC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

  LYKOUREZOS v. GREECE