Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 32190/96   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2003,27223
EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 32190/96 (https://dejure.org/2003,27223)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.07.2003 - 32190/96 (https://dejure.org/2003,27223)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. Juli 2003 - 32190/96 (https://dejure.org/2003,27223)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,27223) 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

    LUORDO c. ITALIE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation de P1-1 Violation de l'art. 8 Violation de l'art. 6-1 Violation de P4-2 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    LUORDO v. ITALY

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of P1-1 Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P4-2 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

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 ... (40)

  • EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

    DE TOMMASO v. ITALY

    Furthermore, even if it may have been justified at the outset, a measure restricting an individual's freedom of movement may become disproportionate and breach that individual's rights if it is automatically extended over a lengthy period (see Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, § 96, ECHR 2003-IX; Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 121, 23 May 2006; and Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, § 35, ECHR 2006-XII).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.10.2015 - C-443/14

    Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Pedro Cruz Villalón stellt eine Auflage für

    28 - Wie das vorlegende Gericht ausführt, subsumiert der EGMR in seiner Rechtsprechung zu Art. 2 des Protokolls Nr. 4 zur EMRK Einschränkungen bezüglich des Wohnsitzes gelegentlich unter den Begriff der Freizügigkeit (vgl. z. B. die Urteile Luordo/Italien vom 17. Juli 2003, Nr. 32190/96, Villa/Italien vom 20. April 2010, Nr. 19675/06, und Tatishvili/Russland vom 22. Februar 2007, Nr. 1509/02).
  • EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 54522/00

    KOTOV v. RUSSIA

    Elle n'a pas non plus examiné cette question dans des affaires où elle était appelée à dire si l'article 6 était applicable aux litiges nés de procédures de liquidation (voir, par exemple, Werner c. Pologne, no 26760/95, § 34, 15 novembre 2001, et Ismeta Bacic c. Croatie, no 43595/06, § 27, 19 juin 2008), ni dans celles où elle a statué sur la durée d'une procédure de ce type (Luordo c. Italie, no 32190/96, §§ 67-71, CEDH 2003-IX).
  • 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).

    Furthermore, even were it justified at the outset, a measure restricting an individual's freedom of movement may become disproportionate and breach that individual's rights if it is automatically extended over a long period (see Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, § 96, ECHR 2003-IX; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, § 35, ECHR 2006-...; and Riener, cited above, § 121).

  • EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29713/05

    STAMOSE v. BULGARIA

    In previous cases under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 the Court (or the former European Commission of Human Rights) has been concerned with such bans imposed in connection with pending criminal proceedings (see Schmid v. Austria, no. 10670/83, Commission decision of 9 July 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 44, p. 195; Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, ECHR 2001-V; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, ECHR 2006-XII; Sissanis v. Romania, no. 23468/02, 25 January 2007; Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, 21 October 2008; A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, 31 March 2009; Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 23530/02, 2 July 2009; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, 20 January 2011; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, 17 February 2011; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, 7 June 2011; and Miazdzyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, 24 January 2012), enforcement of criminal sentences (see M. v. Germany, no. 10307/83, Commission decision of 6 March 1984, DR 37, p. 113), lack of rehabilitation in respect of criminal offences (see Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, 10 February 2011), pending bankruptcy proceedings (see Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, ECHR 2003-IX), refusal to pay customs penalties (see Napijalo v. Croatia, no. 66485/01, 13 November 2003), failure to pay taxes (see Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, 23 May 2006), failure to pay judgment debts to private persons (see Ignatov v. Bulgaria, no. 50/02, 2 July 2009, and Gochev v. Bulgaria, no. 34383/03, 26 November 2009), knowledge of "State secrets" (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, ECHR 2006-XV), failure to comply with military-service obligations (see Peltonen v. Finland, no. 19583/92, Commission decision of 20 February 1995, DR 80-a, p. 38, and Marangos v. Cyprus, no. 31106/96, Commission decision of 20 May 1997, unreported), mental illness coupled with a lack of arrangements for appropriate care in the destination country (see Nordblad v. Sweden, no. 19076/91, Commission decision of 13 October 1993, unreported), and court orders prohibiting minor children from being removed to a foreign country (see Roldan Texeira and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 40655/98, 26 October 2000, and Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, 27 September 2011).
  • EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 10347/02

    DI IESO c. ITALIE

    La Cour observe qu'elle a déjà traité des affaires semblables à celle du cas d'espèce et a constaté la violation de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention, et des articles 8 et 6 § 1 de la Convention (voir Luordo c. Italie, no 32190/96, CEDH 2003-IX).

    Après avoir examiné tous les éléments qui lui ont été soumis, la Cour considère que le Gouvernement n'a exposé aucun fait ni argument convaincant pouvant mener à des conclusions différentes dans le cas présent: la longueur de la procédure en question a entraîné la rupture de l'équilibre à ménager entre l'intérêt général au paiement des créanciers de la faillite et l'intérêt du requérant lié au respect de sa correspondance, à sa capacité d'ester en justice pour la défense des intérêts patrimoniaux et de son droit au respect des biens (voir, mutatis mutandis, Luordo c. Italie, no 32190/96, CEDH 2003-IX, Gasser c. Italie, no 10481/02, 21 septembre 2006 et Matteoni c. Italie, no 42053/02, 8 juin 2006).

  • EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 43777/13

    VRZIC v. CROATIA

    In determining whether this requirement has been met, the Court recognises that the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 75, ECHR 1999-III; Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 49, ECHR 1999-V; and Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, § 69, ECHR 2003-IX).
  • EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 14183/02

    ANTONENKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    The Court observes that it ruled 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, 03.03.2020 - 69729/12

    FILKIN c. PORTUGAL

    Le gouvernement russe est également d'avis que la mesure litigieuse a pesé d'une manière exorbitante sur le droit du requérant au respect de ses biens pendant une période d'une durée excessive, à l'instar de ce que la Cour aurait relevé dans les affaires Luordo c. Italie (no 32190/96, CEDH 2003-IX) et Borzhonov c. Russie (no 18274/04, 22 janvier 2009).
  • EGMR, 12.06.2007 - 10756/02

    GALLUCCI c. ITALIE

    La Cour relève qu'elle a déjà traité des affaires semblables à celle du cas d'espèce et a constaté la violation des articles 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention, 8 de la Convention et 2 du Protocole no 4 à la Convention de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (voir Luordo c. Italie, no 32190/96, CEDH 2003-IX, et De Blasi c. Italie, précité).
  • EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 61093/00

    SCEA FERME DE FRESNOY c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 7031/05

    INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR COMMERCE AND DEVELOPMENT AD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 16528/05

    HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  • EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00

    BARTIK v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 14356/08

    GUILL c. LUXEMBOURG

  • EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 32318/05

    POTAPENKO v. HUNGARY

  • EGMR, 18.11.2010 - 18990/07

    CONSORTS RICHET ET LE BER c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 14613/03

    NIKIFORENKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 27576/05

    ALEKSA v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 15007/02

    IVANOV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 10652/02

    COLLARILE ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04

    MAKEDONSKI v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 14447/06

    BLATCHFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 13697/04

    CARBE ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 30408/03

    CAVALLERI c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 24824/03

    COLOMBI c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 981/04

    SHAW c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 26461/06

    VALENTIN v. DENMARK

  • EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 19126/02

    KOMAROVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 77986/01

    FORTE c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 1319/07

    GARCIA c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 32715/04

    JUSUFOSKI v.

  • EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 14448/03

    BERTOLINI c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 08.03.2007 - 23241/04

    ARMA c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 770/03

    DI CARLO ET BONAFFINI c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 31008/02

    FEDOROV AND FEDOROVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 26.03.2009 - 26461/06

    VALENTIN v. DENMARK

  • EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 37509/06

    BESSENYEI v. HUNGARY

  • EGMR, 03.04.2006 - 32461/02

    HRISTOV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 12363/10

    DOMINGOS MARQUES RIBEIRO MACARICO c. PORTUGAL

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