Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TASKIN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Art. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 36, Art. 36 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 8 Violation de l'art. 6-1 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 2 et 13 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TASKIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 36, Art. 36 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 2 and 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (französisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

  Umgehung einer rechtskräftigen Entscheidung der Justiz trotz erwiesener Gefährdung von Gesundheit und Umwelt

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 46117/99
• EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 46117/99
• EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 46117/99

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 46117/99

  The Court points out that Article 8 applies to severe environmental pollution which may affect individuals" well-being and prevent them from enjoying their homes in such a way as to affect their private and family life adversely, without, however, seriously endangering their health (see López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, pp. 54-55, § 51).
• EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

  McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 46117/99

  The Court reiterates that, according to its settled case-law, whilst Article 8 contains no explicit procedural requirements, the decision-making process leading to measures of interference must be fair and such as to afford due respect for the interests of the individual as safeguarded by Article 8 (see, mutatis mutandis, McMichael v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B, p. 55, § 87).
• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 62543/00

  GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 46117/99

  Similarly, in bringing an application for judicial review, the applicants had used the single means available to them for complaining of infringement of their right to live in a healthy and balanced environment and of interference with their lifestyle (see, mutatis mutandis, Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, §§ 46-47, ECHR 2004-III).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95

  ATHANASSOGLOU ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 46117/99

  The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question; tenuous connections or remote consequences are not sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see, among many other examples, Balmer-Schafroth and Others v. Switzerland, judgment of 26 August 1997, Reports 1997-IV, p. 1357, § 32, and Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 46117/99

  In view of the circumstances (see paragraph 12 above), the Court considers that Mrs Öçkan may claim to have a legitimate interest in obtaining a ruling that the issuing of the permit to the gold mine near Bergama constituted a breach of the rights guaranteed in Articles 2, 6 § 1, 8 and 13 of the Convention, on which Mr Öçkan had relied before the Convention institutions (see, mutatis mutandis, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI).

• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 67021/01

  Tatar und Tatar ./. Rumänien

  Les requérants invoquent en ce sens les affaires Giacomelli c. Italie (arrêt du 2 novembre 2006, § 83), Hatton et autres c. Royaume Uni ([GC], no 36022/97, § 128, ECHR 2003-VIII), Guerra et autres précité (§ 60) et Taskin et autres c. Turquie (no 46117/99, § 119, CEDH 2004-X).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 13.09.2016 - C-104/16

  Nach Auffassung von Generalanwalt Wathelet gilt für die Westsahara weder das …

  96 - Vgl. Entscheidungen des EGMR vom 8. Juli 2003, Hatton u. a./Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2003:0708JUD00360229710, § 128), und vom 10. November 2004, Ta?Ÿkin u. a./Türkei (CE:ECHR:2004:1110JUD004611799, § 119).
• EGMR, 05.06.2007 - 17381/02

  LEMKE c. TURQUIE

  Quant à la qualité de victime de la requérante, la Cour rappelle avoir dit dans l'affaire Taskin et autres c. Turquie (no 46117/99, CEDH 2004-X), que lorsque les effets dangereux d'une activité minière ont été déterminés dans le cadre d'une procédure d'évaluation de l'impact sur l'environnement, de manière à établir un lien suffisamment étroit avec la vie privée et familiale, l'article 8 s'applique au cas d'espèce.

  Faute d'élément susceptible d'étayer la thèse de l'intéressée, il n'incombe pas à la Cour de spéculer en la matière (voir en ce sens, (Taskin et autres c. Turquie (déc.), no 46117/99, 29 janvier 2004).

 
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 43449/02

  MILEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The Court considers that the violation of Article 8 caused each of the applicants non-pecuniary damage which cannot, however, be precisely calculated (see, mutatis mutandis, Taskın and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 144, ECHR 2004-X).
• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 31833/06

  CINGILLI HOLDING A.S. AND CINGILLIOGLU v. TURKEY

  By way of example, such cases have related to failure to: pay a debt or compensation (Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 36-38, ECHR 2002-III; Timofeyev v. Russia, no. 58263/00, §§ 40-43, 23 October 2003; Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, §§ 25-26, 27 May 2004; and Simaldone v. Italy, no. 22644/03, §§ 48-56, 31 March 2009); comply with the annulment of an expropriation order (Katsaros v. Greece, no. 51473/99, §§ 33-35, 6 June 2002); restore property or pay compensation (Jasiuniene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, §§ 28-32, 6 March 2003, and Sabin Popescu v. Romania, no. 48102/99, §§ 68-76, 2 March 2004); demolish buildings (Kyrtatos v. Greece, no. 41666/98, §§ 31-32, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts), and Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, §§ 65-73, 17 June 2003); evict persons from a building (Prodan v. Moldova, no. 49806/99, §§ 50-56, ECHR 2004-III (extracts)); grant access to public documents (Kenedi v. Hungary, no. 31475/05, §§ 35-39, 26 May 2009); bring industrial and other activities to an end (Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, §§ 135-138, ECHR 2004-X, and Okyay and Others v. Turkey, no. 36220/97, §§ 72-74, ECHR 2005-VII); employ a person (Castren-Niniou v. Greece, no. 43837/02, §§ 25-28, 9 June 2005); and hand over adopted children to their parents (Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, §§ 174-189, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)).
• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 31965/07

  HARDY AND MAILE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  It was clear from the Court's case-law that Article 8 only applied to cases where severe environmental pollution was in fact occurring (citing López Ostra, cited above, § 51) or where it had been determined that individuals were likely to be exposed to the dangerous effects of an activity in such a way as to establish a sufficiently close link with private and family life (Taskın and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 113, ECHR 2004-X).
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 24202/10

  Maempel ./. Malta

  Specifically, Article 8 of the Convention applies to severe environmental pollution which may affect individuals" well-being and prevent them from enjoying their homes in such a way as to affect their private and family life adversely, even without seriously endangering their health (see, among others, Taskın and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 113, ECHR 2004-X).
• EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 23800/06

  SHELLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Nor is he being denied any information or assistance concerning a threat to his health for which the authorities are directly or indirectly responsible (see environmental cases where individuals can claim access to information, or protection, where they are affected by dangerous industrial or mining operations licensed or condoned by the authorities e.g. Guerra and Others v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, Taskın and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, ECHR 2004-X, Giacomelli v. Italy, no. 59909/00, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 43245/07

  JOOS v. SWITZERLAND

  The Court reiterates that, for Article 6 § 1 in its "civil" limb to be applicable, there must be a dispute over a "civil right" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see, among many other examples, Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-IV; Taskın and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 130, ECHR 2004-X and L'association des amis de Saint-Raphaël et de Fréjus v. France (dec.), no. 45053/98, § 20, 29 February 2000).
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 12853/03

  IVAN ATANASOV v. BULGARIA

  To reach that conclusion, it had regard to the findings of the domestic courts, based on an environmental impact assessment, that the operation of the mine had caused widespread environmental degradation and had affected the applicants (see Taskın and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, §§ 12 and 111-14, ECHR 2004-X).
• EGMR, 21.02.2008 - 18497/03

  RAVON ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 44837/07

  ÇIÇEK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 22743/07

  OTGON v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 28711/10

  TRAUBE v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 54948/07

  TARIM c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 34327/06

  GENÇ AND DEMIRGAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 46771/99

  ÖÇKAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE