Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 28793/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,43682
EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 28793/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,43682)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.02.2006 - 28793/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,43682)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. Februar 2006 - 28793/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,43682)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,43682) 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

    CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S PARTY v. MOLDOVA - [Azeri Translation]

    Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
    [AZE] Preliminary objection rejected Violation of Art. 11 Not necessary to examine under Art. 10 Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S PARTY v. MOLDOVA

    Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection rejected Violation of Art. 11 Not necessary to examine under Art. 10 Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PARTI POPULAIRE DEMOCRATE-CHRETIEN c. MOLDOVA

    Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
    Exception préliminaire rejetée Violation de l'art. 11 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 10 Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (18)

  • EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 1543/06

    BACZKOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND

    Aux termes du second paragraphe de l'article 11, et comme le prévoient également les articles 8, 9 et 10 de la Convention, la seule forme de nécessité capable de justifier une ingérence dans l'un des droits consacrés par ces articles est celle qui peut se réclamer de la «société démocratique» (Refah Partisi (Parti de la prospérité) et autres c. Turquie [GC], nos 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 et 41344/98, §§ 86-89, CEDH 2003-II, et Parti populaire démocrate-chrétien c. Moldova, no 28793/02, § 63, CEDH 2006-II).
  • EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 4916/07

    Alexejew ./. Russland

    To the extent that these issues are relevant to the assessment of the proportionality of the interference they will be addressed in paragraphs 78-79 below (see Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, § 53, ECHR 2006-II).
  • EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

    MALOFEYEVA v. RUSSIA

    However, the Court decides to dispense with ruling on the issue of lawfulness because, in any event, the interference fell short of being necessary in a democratic society, for the reasons set out below (see, for a similar approach, Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, § 53, ECHR 2006-II).
  • EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 10877/04

    SERGEY KUZNETSOV v. RUSSIA

    By virtue of the wording of the second paragraph of Article 11, the only necessity capable of justifying an interference with the rights enshrined in that Article is one that may claim to spring from "democratic society" (see Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, §§ 62-63, ECHR 2006-, and Djavit An, cited above, § 56).
  • EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

    NEMTSOV v. RUSSIA

    It considers that in this case the questions of lawfulness and of the existence of a legitimate aim are indissociable from the question whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society" (see, mutatis mutandis, Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, § 53, ECHR 2006-II), and it considers it unnecessary to examine them separately.
  • EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 6991/08

    HYDE PARK AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA (nos. 5 and 6)

    It will therefore examine this issue below (see Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, § 53, ECHR 2006-II).
  • EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 25196/04

    CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S PARTY v. MOLDOVA (No. 2)

    41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, §§ 86-89, ECHR 2003-II, and Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, ECHR 2006-II).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

    LIU v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

    To the extent that the lawfulness issues are relevant to the assessment of the proportionality of the interference they will be addressed in paragraphs 80 to 96 below (see Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, § 53, ECHR 2006-II).
  • EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 25803/04

    HERRI BATASUNA ET BATASUNA c. ESPAGNE

    Se référant aux arrêts Gorzelik et autres c. Pologne ([GC], no 44158/98, CEDH 2004-I) et Parti populaire démocrate-chrétien c. Moldova (no 28793/02, CEDH 2006-...), le Gouvernement considère comme légitime la mesure entreprise, dont l'objectif serait d'éviter que les partis dissous agissent contre ledit système en soutenant la violence et les activités d'une organisation terroriste, en l'espèce l'ETA (arrêt Refah Partisi (Parti de la prospérité) et autres c. Turquie [GC], nos 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 et 41344/98, CEDH 2003-II).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35082/04

    MAKHMUDOV v. RUSSIA

    By virtue of the wording of the second paragraph of Article 11, the only necessity capable of justifying an interference with the rights enshrined in that Article is one that may claim to spring from "democratic society" (see Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, §§ 62-63, ECHR 2006-..., and Djavit An, cited above, § 56).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 10519/03

    BARANKEVICH v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 10661/08

    KOMMERSANT MOLDOVY v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 28700/03

    FLUX AND SAMSON v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 36305/03

    TARA AND POIATA v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 32118/06

    ASOCIATIA PENTRU LICHIDAREA CONSECINTELOR PACTULUI MOLOTOV-RIBBENTROP v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 33238/06

    FUSU v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 31001/03

    FLUX (NO. 2) v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 12.06.2007 - 32558/03

    FLUX v. MOLDOVA (No. 3)

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