Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 43734/14   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2019,8332
EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 43734/14 (https://dejure.org/2019,8332)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09.04.2019 - 43734/14 (https://dejure.org/2019,8332)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09. April 2019 - 43734/14 (https://dejure.org/2019,8332)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,8332) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive information);Violation ...

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

  • lto.de (Kurzinformation)

    Vorgehen gegen Kreml-Kritiker Nawalny rechtswidrig: EGMR wirft Russland politische Unterdrückung vor

In Nachschlagewerken

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

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

  • EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13

    KARÁCSONY ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 43734/14
    42461/13 and 44357/13, § 123, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

    CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 43734/14
    As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see among other authorities, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 32, ECHR 1999-IV; Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 42, ECHR 2004-IV; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos.
  • EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

    ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 43734/14
    As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see among other authorities, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 32, ECHR 1999-IV; Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 42, ECHR 2004-IV; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos.
  • EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

    LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 43734/14
    21279/02 and 36448/02, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV; and Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos.
  • EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94

    WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 43734/14
    However, it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see, among other authorities, Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 54, ECHR 1999-I; Korbely v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, §§ 72-73, ECHR 2008; and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 140, ECHR 2012).
  • EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 74568/12

    Russland verurteilt: 25.000 Euro wegen Festnahme nach Demo

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 43734/14
    He organised and led a number of rallies (see, in particular, Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, 15 November 2018), including an assembly at Bolotnaya Square in Moscow on 6 May 2012 (see, among other sources, in Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 7-65, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13

    Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 43734/14
    In 2011-12 the applicant ran an increasingly public anti-corruption campaign targeting high-ranking public officials (see Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, § 15, 23 February 2016).
  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 43734/14
    As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see among other authorities, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 32, ECHR 1999-IV; Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 42, ECHR 2004-IV; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos.
  • EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

    SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 43734/14
    The test of "necessity in a democratic society" requires the Court to determine whether the "interference" complained of corresponded to a "pressing social need", whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it are relevant and sufficient (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 62, Series A no. 30).
  • EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

    MAESTRI c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 43734/14
    The Court reiterates that the expression "prescribed by law" in the second paragraph of Article 10 not only requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, among other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V, and Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I).
  • EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 13668/21

    MELIA v. GEORGIA

    He noted that the questions had referred to the cases of Tymoshenko v. Ukraine (no. 49872/11, 30 April 2013) and Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 43734/14, 9April 2019), stating that this had been "very important" and that the Court had also put a question under Article 18 of the Convention, which normally came into play in cases where a government used the law-enforcement machinery for illegitimate purposes, such as political persecutions and arrests.

    He had stated that the Court was reviewing the present application in the light of its judgments in Tymoshenko v. Ukraine (no. 49872/11, 30 April 2013) and Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 43734/14, 9 April 2019), which were referred to in the relevant questions.

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht