Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12, 36847/12, 11252/13, 12317/13, 43746/14 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA
Preliminary objections dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) ...
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NAVALNYY c. RUSSIE
Exceptions préliminaires rejetées (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité;(Art. 35-1) Épuisement des voies de recours internes;Exception préliminaire rejetée (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité;(Art. 35-1) Épuisement des voies de recours internes;Exception ...
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Preliminary objections dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) ...
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse (4)
- lto.de (Kurzinformation)
Verhaftungen des Kremlkritikers Nawalny: Russland verletzt "politisch motiviert" Menschenrechte
- archive.fo (Pressebericht, 15.11.2018)
Russland muss Nawalny entschädigen
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Pressemitteilung)
Grand Chamber judgment Navalnyy v. Russia - violation of opposition figure's rights
- taz.de (Pressebericht, 15.11.2018)
Nawalny-Demos auch ohne Erlaubnis
In Nachschlagewerken
- Wikipedia(Wikipedia-Eintrag mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)+3Weitere Entscheidungen mit demselben BezugEGMR, 09.04.2019 - 43734/14
Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny
EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny
EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15Urteile gegen Brüder Nawalny "willkürlich"
EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny
Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 29580/12
- EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12, 36847/12, 11252/13, 12317/13, 43746/14
Papierfundstellen
- NVwZ-RR 2019, 793
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (40)
- EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 25691/04
BUKTA ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12
It is not, in principle, contrary to the spirit of Article 11 if, for reasons of public order and national security a High Contracting Party requires that the holding of meetings be subject to authorisation (see Oya Ataman, cited above, § 37; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 35, ECHR 2007-III; Balçik and Others v. Turkey, no. 25/02, § 49, 29 November 2007; Nurettin Aldemir and Others v. Turkey, nos.It appears that the nuisance caused by the applicant and his fellow protestors caused a certain disruption to ordinary life but did not in the concrete circumstances exceed that level of minor disturbance that follows from normal exercise of the right of peaceful assembly in a public place (see Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 47, 24 July 2012; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 37, ECHR 2007-III; cf. Kudrevicius and Others, cited above, §§ 149, 164-75).
- EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98
MAESTRI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12
The Court reiterates its case-law to the effect that the expressions "prescribed by law" and "in accordance with the law" in Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention not only requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, among other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, § 52, ECHR 2001-VI; Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 39, ECHR 2002-II; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; Vyerentsov, cited above, § 52; Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, §§ 64-65, ECHR 2004-I; and Sindicatul "Pastorul cel Bun" v. Romania [GC], no. 2330/09, § 153, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion and the manner of its exercise (see, among other authorities, Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 84, ECHR 2000-XI; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; and Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 411).
- EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 44158/98
GORZELIK AND OTHERS v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12
The Court reiterates its case-law to the effect that the expressions "prescribed by law" and "in accordance with the law" in Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention not only requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, among other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, § 52, ECHR 2001-VI; Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 39, ECHR 2002-II; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; Vyerentsov, cited above, § 52; Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, §§ 64-65, ECHR 2004-I; and Sindicatul "Pastorul cel Bun" v. Romania [GC], no. 2330/09, § 153, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).Although individual interests must on occasion be subordinated to those of a group, democracy does not simply mean that the views of a majority must always prevail: a balance must be achieved which ensures the fair and proper treatment of people from minorities and avoids abuse of a dominant position (see, among other authorities, Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, 13 August 1981, § 63, Series A no. 44; Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, § 90, ECHR 2004-I; Leyla ?žahin, cited above, § 108; and Karácsony and Others, cited above, § 147).
- EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08
FÁBER v. HUNGARY
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12
It appears that the nuisance caused by the applicant and his fellow protestors caused a certain disruption to ordinary life but did not in the concrete circumstances exceed that level of minor disturbance that follows from normal exercise of the right of peaceful assembly in a public place (see Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 47, 24 July 2012; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 37, ECHR 2007-III; cf. Kudrevicius and Others, cited above, §§ 149, 164-75).See, for example, about revisionism, Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, 24 June 2003; Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, ECHR 2015 (extracts), promoting totalitarian ideas; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, 24 July 2012, hate speech; Norwood v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI, incitement to violence; and Hizb Ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, 12 June 2012.
- EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 36487/07
ÇELIK c. TURQUIE (N° 3)
- EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 31098/08
HIZB UT-TAHRIR AND OTHERS v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12
See, for example, about revisionism, Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, 24 June 2003; Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, ECHR 2015 (extracts), promoting totalitarian ideas; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, 24 July 2012, hate speech; Norwood v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI, incitement to violence; and Hizb Ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, 12 June 2012. - EGMR, 11.10.2001 - 50841/99
OSMANI AND OTHERS v.
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12
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, 02.10.2001 - 29221/95
STANKOV AND THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12
The link between Article 10 and Article 11 is particularly relevant where the authorities have interfered with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in reaction to the views held or statements made by participants in a demonstration or members of an association (see, for example, Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 85, ECHR 2001-IX). - EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 70276/01
Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (hinreichender Verdacht nach Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. …
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12
Also, allegations of hidden motives were not by their nature susceptible to proof, except in very rare cases such as Gusinskiy v. Russia (no. 70276/01, ECHR 2004-IV); in the present case the arguments advanced by the applicant were no more than speculation or a personal perception, devoid of any tangible evidence. - EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 33112/04
KARATEPE ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12
33112/04, 36110/04, 40190/04, 41469/04 and 41471/04, § 46, 7 April 2009; Skiba, decision cited above; Çelik v. Turkey (no. 3), no. 36487/07, § 90, 15 November 2012; and Gün and Others, cited above, §§ 73 and 80). - EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91
Radikalenerlaß
- EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10126/82
Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" ./. Österreich
- EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 42606/05
IZCI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79
Öztürk ./. Deutschland
- EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98
SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 32124/02
NURETTIN ALDEMIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06
EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung
- EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 65831/01
Schutz der Infragestellung der von den Nazis am jüdischen Volk begangenen …
- EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 44774/98
LEYLA SAHIN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29225/95
- EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11
MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04
- EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00
MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 26229/95
GAWEDA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74
SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
- EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 25/02
BALÇIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08
CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87
DEMICOLI v. MALTA
- EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 10877/04
SERGEY KUZNETSOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06
STANEV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 13.08.1981 - 7601/76
YOUNG, JAMES ET WEBSTER c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05
TARANENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 33268/03
ASHUGHYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 23131/03
NORWOOD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 28495/06
AKGÖL AND GOL v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 24699/94
VgT VEREIN GEGEN TIERFABRIKEN c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13
KARÁCSONY ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE
- EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
- EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)
[ENG]
- EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87
PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE
- EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 64937/19
ELVAN c. TÜRKIYE
Se référant à la jurisprudence pertinente de la Cour (Oya Ataman c. Turquie, no 74552/01, §§ 41-43, CEDH 2006-XIV, Izci c. Turquie, no 42606/05, § 99, 23 juillet 2013, 1brahimov et autres c. Azerbaïdjan, nos 69234/11 et 2 autres, § 80, 11 février 2016, Navalnyy c. Russie [GC], nos 29580/12 et 4 autres, § 134, 15 novembre 2018), le Gouvernement affirme qu'en l'espèce le recours à la force par les policiers était devenu absolument nécessaire en raison des agissements de certains manifestants sur les lieux de l'événement en cause, où, selon lui, plus de deux cents individus s'étaient regroupés vers 1 heure et avaient commencé à vandaliser des commerces. - EGMR, 27.04.2021 - 15976/16
TÖKÉS c. ROUMANIE
En conséquence, la Cour estime plus opportun de se livrer à cette analyse dans le cadre de l'examen plus large de la proportionnalité des mesures litigieuses auquel elle procédera ci-dessous au regard du critère de la « nécessité ", c'est-à-dire en cherchant à déterminer si les juridictions nationales ont fourni des motifs pertinents et suffisants pour justifier les mesures litigieuses (voir, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy c. Russie [GC], nos 29580/12 et 4 autres, § 119, 15 novembre 2018).