Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 11.10.2001 - 50841/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,29468) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
OSMANI AND OTHERS v. \
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
OSMANI ET AUTRES c. « L'EX-REPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACEDOINE »
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
Irrecevable (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
OSMANI AND OTHERS v. \
[MAC] Inadmissible
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 50841/99
- EGMR, 11.10.2001 - 50841/99
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95
ROTARU v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2001 - 50841/99
The Court recalls that "a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention" (Amuur v. France judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; and Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 35, ECHR 2000-V). - EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95
DALBAN v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2001 - 50841/99
The Court recalls that "a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention" (Amuur v. France judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; and Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 35, ECHR 2000-V). - EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 22479/93
ÖZTÜRK v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2001 - 50841/99
Turning to the question whether the impugned measures were proportionate, the Court recalls that the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference in relation to the aim pursued (see among other authorities, Öztürk v. Turkey [G.C.], no. 22479/93, § 70, ECHR 1999-VI).
- EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12
Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny
It is, in any event, for the Court to give a final ruling on the restriction's compatibility with the Convention and this is to be done by assessing the circumstances of a particular case (see Rufi Osmani and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 50841/99, ECHR 2001-X, and Galstyan, cited above, § 114). - EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 37553/05
KUDREVICIUS ET AUTRES c. LITUANIE
It is, in any event, for the Court to give a final ruling on the restriction's compatibility with the Convention and this is to be done by assessing the circumstances of a particular case (see Rufi Osmani and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 50841/99, ECHR 2001-X, and Galstyan, cited above, § 114). - EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 57818/09
LASHMANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
It is, in any event, for the Court to give a final ruling on the restriction's compatibility with the Convention and this is to be done by assessing the circumstances of a particular case (see Rufi Osmani and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 50841/99, ECHR 2001-X, and Galstyan, cited above, § 114).