Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,49943
EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01 (https://dejure.org/2005,49943)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.01.2005 - 74153/01 (https://dejure.org/2005,49943)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Januar 2005 - 74153/01 (https://dejure.org/2005,49943)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,49943) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    POPOV v. MOLDOVA (No. 1)

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
    Preliminary objections dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies abuse of the right of petition) Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 13 Inadmissible under Art. 3 Pecuniary damage - reserved Non-pecuniary damage - financial ...

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 ... (74)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 31365/96

    VARBANOV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01
    As to the Government's submission concerning the alleged abuse, the Court considers that an application would not normally be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention on the basis that it was "offensive" or "defamatory" unless it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see the Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X or Rehak v. the Czech Republic, (dec.), no 67208/01, 18 May 2004).

    Reference is made to Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X and Rehák v. the Czech Republic (cited above).

  • EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67208/01

    REHÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01
    As to the Government's submission concerning the alleged abuse, the Court considers that an application would not normally be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention on the basis that it was "offensive" or "defamatory" unless it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see the Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X or Rehak v. the Czech Republic, (dec.), no 67208/01, 18 May 2004).

    In its decision of 18 May 2004 in the case of Rehák v. the Czech Republic (Application No. 67208/01) the Court declared the application inadmissible on the grounds of the abuse of the right of petition by the applicant.

  • EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 60115/00

    Meinungsfreiheit von Rechtsanwälten bei der öffentlichen Kritik von …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01
    The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Amihalachioaie v. Moldova, no. 60115/00, § 47, ECHR 2004-...).
     
  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

    GUZZARDI v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01
    In the performance of their task, the Convention institutions are, notably, free to attribute to the facts of the case, as found to be established on the evidence before them, a characterisation in law different from that given by the applicant or, if need be, to view the facts in a different manner; furthermore, they have to take account not only of the original application but also of the additional documents intended to complete the latter (see, for example, the above-mentioned Guzzardi judgment, Series A no. 39, pp. 22-23, §§ 62-63, and the Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, pp. 40-41, § 98, as compared with p. 34, § 79, and pp. 39-40, §§ 96-97).".
  • EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

    RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01
    In the performance of their task, the Convention institutions are, notably, free to attribute to the facts of the case, as found to be established on the evidence before them, a characterisation in law different from that given by the applicant or, if need be, to view the facts in a different manner; furthermore, they have to take account not only of the original application but also of the additional documents intended to complete the latter (see, for example, the above-mentioned Guzzardi judgment, Series A no. 39, pp. 22-23, §§ 62-63, and the Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, pp. 40-41, § 98, as compared with p. 34, § 79, and pp. 39-40, §§ 96-97).".
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

    IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01
    But the delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
  • EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

    Mord an James Bulger

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01
    The burden of proof is on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that an effective remedy was available in theory and in practice at the relevant time; that is to say, that the remedy was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaint and offered reasonable prospects of success (see V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 57, ECHR 1999-IX).
  • EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

    BRUSCO v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01
    However, this rule is subject to exceptions, which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case (Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).
  • EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

    RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01
    The Court reiterates that a "claim" can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see the Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, § 59).
  • EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 67810/10

    GROSS v. SWITZERLAND

    La Cour rappelle qu'en vertu de cette disposition une requête peut être déclarée abusive notamment si elle se fonde délibérément sur des faits controuvés (Akdivar et autres c. Turquie [GC], 16 septembre 1996, §§ 53-54, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-IV, Varbanov c. Bulgarie, no 31365/96, § 36, CEDH 2000-X, Rehak c. République tchèque (déc.), no 67208/01, 18 mai 2004, Popov c. Moldova (no 1), no 74153/01, § 48, 18 janvier 2005, Kérétchachvili c. Géorgie (déc.), no 5667/02, 2 mai 2006, Miroļubovs et autres c. Lettonie, no 798/05, § 63, 15 septembre 2009, et Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. et Di Stefano c. Italie [GC], no 38433/09, § 97, CEDH 2012).
  • EGMR, 25.09.2007 - 42165/02

    HADRABOVA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    It further recalls that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1) no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; Rehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; Kérétchachvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006).

    Moreover, it cannot be excluded that a breach of the principle could, in certain circumstances, justify the conclusion that an application is inadmissible on grounds of abuse of the right of petition (Popov v. Moldova, no. 74153/01, § 48).

  • EGMR, 19.06.2006 - 23130/04

    Menschenrechtskonvention : Unzulässigkeit der Beschwerde wegen Missbrauchs des …

    Im Hinblick auf den behaupteten Missbrauch des Beschwerderechts weist der Gerichtshof erneut darauf hin, dass eine Beschwerde unter anderem dann wegen Missbrauchs nach Artikel 35 Abs. 3 der Konvention abgewiesen werden kann, wenn sie sich bewusst auf falsche Tatsachen stützt (siehe zum Missbrauch des Beschwerderechts Rechtssachen Varbanov ./. Bulgarien , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 31365/96, Nr. 36, EuGHMR 2000-X; Popov ./. Moldau (Nr. 1) Individualbeschwerde Nr. 74153/01, Nr. 48, 18.
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