Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 48205/99, 48207/99, 48209/99   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2002,40361
EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 48205/99, 48207/99, 48209/99 (https://dejure.org/2002,40361)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.05.2002 - 48205/99, 48207/99, 48209/99 (https://dejure.org/2002,40361)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. Mai 2002 - 48205/99, 48207/99, 48209/99 (https://dejure.org/2002,40361)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2002,40361) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    GENTILHOMME, SCHAFF-BENHADJI ET ZEROUKI c. FRANCE

    Art. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 14, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
    Violation de l'art. 6-1 en ce qui concerne la durée de la procédure Irrecevable en ce qui concerne les autres griefs tirés de l'art. 6-1 Irrecevable sous l'angle des art. 8 14 et P1-2 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire ...

 
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 ... (16)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

  • EGMR, 13.07.1983 - 8737/79

    Zimmermann und Steiner ./. Schweiz

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 48205/99
    La Cour rappelle que, lorsqu'elle constate une violation de la Convention, elle peut accorder le paiement des frais et dépens exposés devant les juridictions nationales « pour prévenir ou faire corriger par celles-ci ladite violation » (voir, par exemple, l'arrêt Zimmermann et Steiner c. Suisse du 13 juillet 1983, série A n° 66, § 36).
  • EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

    KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 48205/99
    Elle rappelle qu'elle ne reconnaît la validité de ce type d'arrangement que s'il est admissible dans le système juridique dont dépend l'avocat concerné (voir l'arrêt Kamasinski c. Autriche du 19 décembre 1989, série A n° 168, § 115).
  • EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

    Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland

    The notion of "jurisdiction" reflects the term's meaning in public international law (see Gentilhomme and Others v. France, nos. 48205/99, 48207/99, and 48209/99, § 20, 14 May 2002; Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, §§ 59-61, ECHR 2001-XII; and Assanidze v. Georgia, no. 71503/01, § 137, ECHR 2004-II), so that a State's jurisdictional competence is considered primarily territorial (see Bankovic and Others, § 59), a jurisdiction presumed to be exercised throughout the State's territory (see Ilascu and Others, § 312).
  • EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 3599/18

    Keine Zuständigkeit für aus dem Ausland beantragtes humanitäres Visum, um nach

    104. Thus, the Commission and subsequently the Court concluded that a State was exercising its jurisdiction extraterritorially when, in an area outside its national territory, it exercised public powers such as authority and responsibility in respect of the maintenance of security (see X. and Y. v. Switzerland, cited above; Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, 26 June 1992, §§ 91-98, Series A no. 240; Gentilhomme, Schaff-Benhadji and Zerouki v. France, nos. 48205/99 and 2 others, § 20, 14 May 2002; Al-Skeini and Others, cited above, §§ 143-150; and Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27021/08, §§ 75-96, ECHR 2011).
  • EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09

    HASSAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Thus where, in accordance with custom, treaty or other agreement, authorities of the Contracting State carry out executive or judicial functions on the territory of another State, the Contracting State may be responsible for breaches of the Convention thereby incurred, as long as the acts in question are attributable to it rather than to the territorial State (see Drozd and Janousek, cited above; Gentilhomme and Others v. France, nos. 48205/99, 48207/99 and 48209/99, judgment of 14 May 2002; and also X and Y v. Switzerland, nos. 7289/75 and 7349/76, Commission's admissibility decision of 14 July 1977, DR 9, p. 57).
  • EGMR, 12.09.2012 - 10593/08

    Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und Recht auf Beschwerde; Verhältnis zwischen

    The notion of jurisdiction reflects the meaning given to that term in public international law (see Assanidze v. Georgia, no. 71503/01, § 137, ECHR 2004-II; Gentilhomme and Others v. France, nos. 48205/99, 48207/99 and 48209/99, § 20, 14 May 2002; and Bankovic and Others, cited above, §§ 59-61), such that a State's jurisdiction is primarily territorial (see Al-Skeini and Others, cited above, § 131, and Bankovic and Others, cited above, § 59) and is presumed to be exercised normally throughout the State's territory (see Ilascu and Others, cited above, § 312).
  • EGMR, 16.12.2020 - 20958/14

    Krimkrise

    Thus, where, in accordance with custom, treaty or other agreement, authorities of the Contracting State carry out executive or judicial functions on the territory of another State, the Contracting State may be responsible for breaches of the Convention thereby incurred, as long as the acts in question are attributable to it rather than to the territorial State (see Drozd and Janousek, cited above; Gentilhomme and Others v. France, nos. 48205/99, 48207/99 and 48209/99, 14 May 2002; and X. and Y. v Switzerland, nos. 7289/75 and 7349/76, Commission decision of 14 July 1977, DR 9, p. 57).

    When considering the nature or legal basis of the jurisdiction exercised by the Russian Federation over Crimea at the relevant time, the Court's starting-point is that the concept of "jurisdiction" for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention must be considered to reflect the term's meaning in public international law (see Gentilhomme and Others v. France, nos. 48205/99, 48207/99 and 48209/99, § 20, 14 May 2002; Bankovic and Others, cited above, §§ 59-61; and Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 137, ECHR 2004-II).

  • EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 38263/08

    GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (II)

    "... the Commission and subsequently the Court concluded that a State was exercising its jurisdiction extraterritorially when, in an area outside its national territory, it exercised public powers such as authority and responsibility in respect of the maintenance of security (see X. and Y. v. Switzerland, cited above; Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, 26 June 1992, §§ 91-98, Series A no. 240; Gentilhomme, Schaff-Benhadji and Zerouki v. France, nos. 48205/99 and 2 others, § 20, 14 May 2002; Al-Skeini and Others, cited above, §§ 143-50; and Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27021/08, §§ 75-96, ECHR 2011)..." (emphasis added).
  • EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 31821/96

    ISSA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    The established case-law in this area indicates that the concept of "jurisdiction" for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention must be considered to reflect the term's meaning in public international law (see Gentilhomme, Schaff-Benhadji and Zerouki v. France, nos. 48205/99, 48207/99 and 48209/99, § 20, 14 May 2002; Bankovic and Others, cited above, §§ 59-61, and Assanidzé v. Georgia, [GC], no. 71503/01, § 137, ECHR 2004 -...).
  • EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

    Transnistrien

    The Court refers to its case-law to the effect that the concept of "jurisdiction" for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention must be considered to reflect the term's meaning in public international law (see Gentilhomme and Others v. France, nos. 48205/99, 48207/99 and 48209/99, § 20, judgment of 14 May 2002; Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, §§ 59-61, ECHR 2001-XII; and Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 137, ECHR 2004-II).
  • EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 33234/12

    Litauen und Rumänien mitverantwortlich für CIA-Folter

    In that regard, the Court would refer to its case-law to the effect that the concept of "jurisdiction" for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention must be considered to reflect the term's meaning in public international law (see Gentilhomme and Others v. France, nos. 48205/99, 48207/99 and 48209/99, § 20, judgment of 14 May 2002; Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, §§ 59-61, ECHR 2001-XII; Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 137, ECHR 2004-II; and Ilascu and Others, cited above, §§ 311-312).
  • EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06

    SARGSYAN c. AZERBAÏDJAN

    The Court refers to its case-law to the effect that the concept of "jurisdiction" for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention must be considered to reflect the term's meaning in public international law (see Gentilhomme and Others v. France, nos. 48205/99, 48207/99 and 48209/99, § 20, judgment of 14 May 2002; Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, §§ 59-61, ECHR 2001-XII; and Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 137, ECHR 2004-II).
  • EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 5809/08

    Der "Kadi"-Moment des EGMR

  • EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 46454/11

    Litauen und Rumänien mitverantwortlich für CIA-Folter

  • EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 42126/15

    O.J. AND J.O. v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 14.12.2011 - 13216/05

    CHIRAGOV AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  • EGMR, 14.12.2011 - 40167/06

    SARGSYAN c. AZERBAÏDJAN

  • EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 43611/02

    BELOZOROV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE

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