Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KUZNETSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 9 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 9 Violation of Art. 6 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 184/02
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 184/02

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 184/02

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been invoked both on its own and together with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, it is not generally necessary for the Court to consider the case under Article 14 also, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III, and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, § 67).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 184/02

  That being said, since the nature of the assembly was primarily religious and the participants belonged to the religion of the Jehovah's Witnesses (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 42, ECHR 2000-IV), the Court will first examine this complaint from the standpoint of Article 9 of the Convention, which reads as follows:.
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30985/96

  HASSAN ET TCHAOUCH c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 184/02

  Against that background the Court finds that the interference was not "prescribed by law" and that the Commissioner did not act in good faith and breached a State official's duty of neutrality and impartiality vis-à-vis the applicants' religious congregation (see Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 62, ECHR 2000-XI).

 
• EGMR, 13.12.2001 - 45701/99

  METROPOLITAN CHURCH OF BESSARABIA AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 184/02

  Bearing witness in words and deeds is bound up with the existence of religious convictions (see Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, § 114, ECHR 2001-XII, and Kokkinakis v. Greece, judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, § 31).
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 71933/01

  GARTUKAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 184/02

  Since the Court has already found that the interference with the applicants' right was not "in accordance with the law", this finding makes it unnecessary to determine whether it pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society (see Gartukayev v. Russia, no. 71933/01, § 21, 13 December 2005).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 184/02

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been invoked both on its own and together with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, it is not generally necessary for the Court to consider the case under Article 14 also, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III, and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, § 67).
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 184/02

  Bearing witness in words and deeds is bound up with the existence of religious convictions (see Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, § 114, ECHR 2001-XII, and Kokkinakis v. Greece, judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, § 31).

• EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 3413/09

  LACHIRI c. BELGIQUE

  15. En d'autres termes, nous sommes d'avis que l'analyse de la Cour aurait dû être arrêtée après l'examen de la question de savoir si la mesure en cause était « prévue par la loi », comme la Cour l'a déjà fait à maintes reprises dans le cadre d'une jurisprudence constante à cet égard (Hashman et Harrup, précité, § 41-42, Hassan et Tchaouch, précité, § 88, Rotaru c. Roumanie [GC], no 28341/95, § 62, CEDH 2000-V, Güler et Uur, précité, § 56, Kuznetsov et autres c. Russie, no 184/02, § 74, 11 janvier 2007, Fusu Arcadie et autres c. République de Moldova, no 22218/06, § 39, 17 juillet 2012, Moroz c. Ukraine, no 5187/07, § 108, 2 mars 2017, et Mockut c. Lithuanie, no 66490/09, § 130, 27 février 2018).
• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 26587/07

  KRUPKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that, where the nature of a meeting is primarily religious, as it was in the present case, where the applicants had gathered for a service of worship, a complaint about the disruption of the meeting is to be examined from the standpoint of Article 9 alone (see Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia, no. 184/02, § 53, 11 January 2007), which reads as follows:.

  Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia, no. 184/02, § 72, 11 January 2007.