Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FEDOROV AND FEDOROVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of P4-2 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 31008/02
• EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 31008/02

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

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 31008/02

  The Court recalls that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 31008/02

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising similar issues to the one in the present application (see, for example, the judgments in Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Sahiner v. Turkey, no. 29279/95, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 31008/02

  The Court reiterates that in order to comply with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 such a restriction should be "in accordance with the law", pursue one or more of the legitimate aims contemplated in paragraph 3 of the same Article and be "necessary in a democratic society" (see Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 19, § 39).

 
• EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 32190/96

  LUORDO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 31008/02

  The Court observes that it had to rule on the compatibility with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of an obligation not to leave one's place of residence in a series of cases against Italy, including the case of Luordo (see Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, § 96, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 29279/95

  SAHINER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 31008/02

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising similar issues to the one in the present application (see, for example, the judgments in Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Sahiner v. Turkey, no. 29279/95, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 47778/99

  BASSANI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 31008/02

  This pattern was followed in subsequent cases, where the duration of an obligation not to leave one's place of residence varied between 13 years and 6 months (see Goffi v. Italy, no. 55984/00, § 20, 24 March 2005) and 24 years and 5 months (see Bassani v. Italy, no. 47778/99, § 24, 11 December 2003).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 55984/00

  GOFFI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 31008/02

  This pattern was followed in subsequent cases, where the duration of an obligation not to leave one's place of residence varied between 13 years and 6 months (see Goffi v. Italy, no. 55984/00, § 20, 24 March 2005) and 24 years and 5 months (see Bassani v. Italy, no. 47778/99, § 24, 11 December 2003).

• EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 28975/05

  KHLYUSTOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has examined the proportionality of travel restrictions which were imposed in various contexts: a travel ban imposed as a measure of police supervision of a person suspected of having connections with the Mafia (see Labita, cited above, §§ 193-197); the seizure, as part of the on-the-spot investigation, and subsequent confiscation of a passport of a person who was neither prosecuted nor considered to be a witness in the criminal proceedings (see Baumann, cited above, §§ 65-67); a prohibition on a bankrupt moving away from his place of residence for the duration of the bankruptcy proceedings (see Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, §§ 96-97, ECHR 2003-IX); the seizure of the applicant's passport for refusal to pay a fine for a customs offence (see Napijalo v. Croatia, no. 66485/01, §§ 78-82, 13 November 2003); an obligation not to abscond imposed on a suspect pending criminal proceedings against him (see, among many other examples, Fedorov and Fedorova v. Russia, no. 31008/02, §§ 39-47, 13 October 2005; Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, §§ 59-67, 22 November 2005; Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, §§ 90-97, 7 December 2006; Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, §§ 60-69, 10 July 2008; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, §§ 39-46, 20 January 2011; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, §§ 55-58, 17 February 2011; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, §§ 47-52, 7 June 2011; and Miazdzyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, §§ 33-42, 24 January 2012); travel restrictions imposed for refusal to pay a tax debt (see Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, §§ 118-130, 23 May 2006); travel restrictions imposed on account of knowledge of State secrets (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, §§ 44-52, ECHR 2006-XV, and Soltysyak v. Russia, no. 4663/05, §§ 46-54, 10 February 2011); court orders prohibiting minor children from being removed to a foreign country (see Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, §§ 214-215, 27 September 2011); and a travel ban imposed on account of a breach of the immigration rules of another country (see Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, §§ 33-37, 27 November 2012).