Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (No. 2)

  Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 11 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 34960/04
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 34960/04
• EGMR - 34960/04

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29221/95

  STANKOV AND THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 34960/04

  Lastly, it cannot be overlooked that the instant refusal to register Ilinden was the third in a row (see Stankov, Trayanov, Stoychev, the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, Mechkarov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95, 29222/95, 29223/95, 29225/95 and 29226/95, Commission decision of 21 October 1996, unreported, and United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others, cited above, § 30).

  The Court also considers it important to repeat what it said in its first judgment concerning interferences with the Article 11 rights of Ilinden - Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria (nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, ECHR 2001-IX):.

• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 17353/03

  NAYDENOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 34960/04

  Indeed, to hold otherwise might erect a permanent barrier to bringing such matters before the Court, because, as rightly pointed out by the Government, in Bulgaria a refusal to register a political party or an association does not preclude the possibility of making further applications for registration an indefinite number of times (see, mutatis mutandis, Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 80, Series A no. 39; Nenov v. Bulgaria, no. 33738/02, § 38, 16 July 2009; and Naydenov v. Bulgaria, no. 17353/03, § 58, 26 November 2009).
• EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 18147/02

  CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY MOSCOW v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 34960/04

  While it is for the respondent State to choose what such measures should involve, they must be compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment (see Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia, no. 18147/02, § 106, 5 April 2007, and Kimlya and Others v. Russia, nos.

 
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 44363/02

  RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 34960/04

  The Court has in a number of cases treated such refusals in themselves as interferences with the right to freedom of association (see Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece, 10 July 1998, § 31, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; APEH Üldözötteinek Szövetsége and Others v. Hungary (dec.), no. 32367/96, 31 August 1999; Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, § 52, ECHR 2004-I; Partidul Comunistilor (Nepeceristi) and Ungureanu v. Romania, no. 46626/99, § 27, 3 February 2005; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others, cited above, § 53; Tsonev v. Bulgaria, no. 45963/99, § 43, 13 April 2006; Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 71, ECHR 2006-XI; Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 44363/02, § 60, 1 February 2007; Zhechev v. Bulgaria, no. 57045/00, § 37, 21 June 2007; Bekir-Ousta and Others v. Greece, no. 35151/05, § 40, 11 October 2007; and Emin and Others v. Greece, no. 34144/05, § 37, 26 March 2008).
• EKMR, 21.10.1996 - 29221/95

  STANKOV, TRAYANOV, STOYCHEV, UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 34960/04

  Lastly, it cannot be overlooked that the instant refusal to register Ilinden was the third in a row (see Stankov, Trayanov, Stoychev, the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, Mechkarov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95, 29222/95, 29223/95, 29225/95 and 29226/95, Commission decision of 21 October 1996, unreported, and United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others, cited above, § 30).
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 34144/05

  EMIN ET AUTRES c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 34960/04

  The Court has in a number of cases treated such refusals in themselves as interferences with the right to freedom of association (see Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece, 10 July 1998, § 31, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; APEH Üldözötteinek Szövetsége and Others v. Hungary (dec.), no. 32367/96, 31 August 1999; Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, § 52, ECHR 2004-I; Partidul Comunistilor (Nepeceristi) and Ungureanu v. Romania, no. 46626/99, § 27, 3 February 2005; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others, cited above, § 53; Tsonev v. Bulgaria, no. 45963/99, § 43, 13 April 2006; Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 71, ECHR 2006-XI; Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 44363/02, § 60, 1 February 2007; Zhechev v. Bulgaria, no. 57045/00, § 37, 21 June 2007; Bekir-Ousta and Others v. Greece, no. 35151/05, § 40, 11 October 2007; and Emin and Others v. Greece, no. 34144/05, § 37, 26 March 2008).
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 26698/05

  TOURKIKI ENOSI XANTHIS ET AUTRES c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 34960/04

  In that respect, the present case presents no material difference from a number of similar cases - some of which concerning interferences with the rights of persons asserting minority ethnic consciousness - in which the Court, having found a breach of the substantive Convention right at issue, perceived no need to address separately the complaint under Article 14 (see, among other authorities, Sidiropoulos and Others, cited above, § 52; Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey [GC], no. 23885/94, § 49, ECHR 1999-VIII; Emek Partisi and Senol v. Turkey, no. 39434/98, § 31, 31 May 2005; Ivanov and Others, cited above, § 78; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others, cited above, § 84; Bekir-Ousta and Others, cited above, § 51; Emin and Others, cited above, § 37; and Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others v. Greece, no. 26698/05, § 63, 27 March 2008) or that under Article 6 § 1 (see Sidiropoulos and Others, § 52; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others, § 84; and Tsonev, § 66, all cited above).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 34960/04

  Indeed, to hold otherwise might erect a permanent barrier to bringing such matters before the Court, because, as rightly pointed out by the Government, in Bulgaria a refusal to register a political party or an association does not preclude the possibility of making further applications for registration an indefinite number of times (see, mutatis mutandis, Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 80, Series A no. 39; Nenov v. Bulgaria, no. 33738/02, § 38, 16 July 2009; and Naydenov v. Bulgaria, no. 17353/03, § 58, 26 November 2009).
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 34960/04

  The Court also considers it important to point out that a judgment in which it finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to take individual and/or, if appropriate, general measures in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress the effects, the aim being to put the applicants, as far as possible, in the position they would have been in had the requirements of the Convention not been disregarded (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 85, ECHR 2009-..., with further references).
• EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 23885/94

  FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY PARTY (ÖZDEP) v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 34960/04

  In that respect, the present case presents no material difference from a number of similar cases - some of which concerning interferences with the rights of persons asserting minority ethnic consciousness - in which the Court, having found a breach of the substantive Convention right at issue, perceived no need to address separately the complaint under Article 14 (see, among other authorities, Sidiropoulos and Others, cited above, § 52; Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey [GC], no. 23885/94, § 49, ECHR 1999-VIII; Emek Partisi and Senol v. Turkey, no. 39434/98, § 31, 31 May 2005; Ivanov and Others, cited above, § 78; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others, cited above, § 84; Bekir-Ousta and Others, cited above, § 51; Emin and Others, cited above, § 37; and Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others v. Greece, no. 26698/05, § 63, 27 March 2008) or that under Article 6 § 1 (see Sidiropoulos and Others, § 52; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others, § 84; and Tsonev, § 66, all cited above).
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 39434/98

  EMEK PARTISI ET SENOL c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 35151/05

  BEKIR-OUSTA ET AUTRES c. GRECE
• EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 76836/01

  KIMLYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 59489/00

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN - PIRIN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA