Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 34425/04 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
STOJANOVIC v. SERBIA
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 8 Struck out of the list (solution of the matter) Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 34425/04
- EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 34425/04
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (20)
- EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 54654/00
CHELGHOUM contre la FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 34425/04
The same case-law has been adopted by the Court under Article 3 of the Convention in cases concerning expulsions or extraditions whose execution was no longer possible (see Bilasi-Ashri v. Austria (dec.), no. 3314/02, ECHR 2002-X; Abraham Lunguli v. Sweden (dec.), no. 33692/02, 1 July 2003; Laleh Mir Isfahani v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31252/03, 31 January 2008; Bari v. Sweden (dec.), no. 56726/00, 5 March 2002; Hesam Safawi Bayat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 7233/02, 8 July 2003; R.N. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28242/02, 2 September 2003; Q v. Finland (dec.), no. 42640/04, 22 May 2007; Azzedine Chelghoum v. France (dec.), no. 54654/00, 10 October 2000; and Tony Chidobe v. Italy (dec.), no. 30978/04, 9 September 2004). - EGMR, 05.03.2002 - 56726/00
BARI v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 34425/04
The same case-law has been adopted by the Court under Article 3 of the Convention in cases concerning expulsions or extraditions whose execution was no longer possible (see Bilasi-Ashri v. Austria (dec.), no. 3314/02, ECHR 2002-X; Abraham Lunguli v. Sweden (dec.), no. 33692/02, 1 July 2003; Laleh Mir Isfahani v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31252/03, 31 January 2008; Bari v. Sweden (dec.), no. 56726/00, 5 March 2002; Hesam Safawi Bayat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 7233/02, 8 July 2003; R.N. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28242/02, 2 September 2003; Q v. Finland (dec.), no. 42640/04, 22 May 2007; Azzedine Chelghoum v. France (dec.), no. 54654/00, 10 October 2000; and Tony Chidobe v. Italy (dec.), no. 30978/04, 9 September 2004). - EGMR, 26.11.2002 - 3314/02
BILASI-ASHRI c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 34425/04
The same case-law has been adopted by the Court under Article 3 of the Convention in cases concerning expulsions or extraditions whose execution was no longer possible (see Bilasi-Ashri v. Austria (dec.), no. 3314/02, ECHR 2002-X; Abraham Lunguli v. Sweden (dec.), no. 33692/02, 1 July 2003; Laleh Mir Isfahani v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31252/03, 31 January 2008; Bari v. Sweden (dec.), no. 56726/00, 5 March 2002; Hesam Safawi Bayat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 7233/02, 8 July 2003; R.N. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28242/02, 2 September 2003; Q v. Finland (dec.), no. 42640/04, 22 May 2007; Azzedine Chelghoum v. France (dec.), no. 54654/00, 10 October 2000; and Tony Chidobe v. Italy (dec.), no. 30978/04, 9 September 2004).
- EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 33692/02
ABRAHAM LUNGULI v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 34425/04
The same case-law has been adopted by the Court under Article 3 of the Convention in cases concerning expulsions or extraditions whose execution was no longer possible (see Bilasi-Ashri v. Austria (dec.), no. 3314/02, ECHR 2002-X; Abraham Lunguli v. Sweden (dec.), no. 33692/02, 1 July 2003; Laleh Mir Isfahani v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31252/03, 31 January 2008; Bari v. Sweden (dec.), no. 56726/00, 5 March 2002; Hesam Safawi Bayat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 7233/02, 8 July 2003; R.N. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28242/02, 2 September 2003; Q v. Finland (dec.), no. 42640/04, 22 May 2007; Azzedine Chelghoum v. France (dec.), no. 54654/00, 10 October 2000; and Tony Chidobe v. Italy (dec.), no. 30978/04, 9 September 2004). - EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 7233/02
SAFAWY BAYAT v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 34425/04
The same case-law has been adopted by the Court under Article 3 of the Convention in cases concerning expulsions or extraditions whose execution was no longer possible (see Bilasi-Ashri v. Austria (dec.), no. 3314/02, ECHR 2002-X; Abraham Lunguli v. Sweden (dec.), no. 33692/02, 1 July 2003; Laleh Mir Isfahani v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31252/03, 31 January 2008; Bari v. Sweden (dec.), no. 56726/00, 5 March 2002; Hesam Safawi Bayat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 7233/02, 8 July 2003; R.N. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28242/02, 2 September 2003; Q v. Finland (dec.), no. 42640/04, 22 May 2007; Azzedine Chelghoum v. France (dec.), no. 54654/00, 10 October 2000; and Tony Chidobe v. Italy (dec.), no. 30978/04, 9 September 2004). - EGMR, 02.09.2003 - 28242/02
R.N. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 34425/04
The same case-law has been adopted by the Court under Article 3 of the Convention in cases concerning expulsions or extraditions whose execution was no longer possible (see Bilasi-Ashri v. Austria (dec.), no. 3314/02, ECHR 2002-X; Abraham Lunguli v. Sweden (dec.), no. 33692/02, 1 July 2003; Laleh Mir Isfahani v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31252/03, 31 January 2008; Bari v. Sweden (dec.), no. 56726/00, 5 March 2002; Hesam Safawi Bayat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 7233/02, 8 July 2003; R.N. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28242/02, 2 September 2003; Q v. Finland (dec.), no. 42640/04, 22 May 2007; Azzedine Chelghoum v. France (dec.), no. 54654/00, 10 October 2000; and Tony Chidobe v. Italy (dec.), no. 30978/04, 9 September 2004). - EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 30978/04
CHIDOBE c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 34425/04
The same case-law has been adopted by the Court under Article 3 of the Convention in cases concerning expulsions or extraditions whose execution was no longer possible (see Bilasi-Ashri v. Austria (dec.), no. 3314/02, ECHR 2002-X; Abraham Lunguli v. Sweden (dec.), no. 33692/02, 1 July 2003; Laleh Mir Isfahani v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31252/03, 31 January 2008; Bari v. Sweden (dec.), no. 56726/00, 5 March 2002; Hesam Safawi Bayat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 7233/02, 8 July 2003; R.N. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28242/02, 2 September 2003; Q v. Finland (dec.), no. 42640/04, 22 May 2007; Azzedine Chelghoum v. France (dec.), no. 54654/00, 10 October 2000; and Tony Chidobe v. Italy (dec.), no. 30978/04, 9 September 2004). - EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 23037/04
MATIJASEVIC v. SERBIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 34425/04
Lastly, the Court recalls that it has already held that a complaint filed with the Court of Serbia and Montenegro was unavailable until 15 July 2005 and, further, that it had remained ineffective until the very break up of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro (see Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, §§ 34-37, ECHR 2006-...). - EGMR, 22.05.2007 - 42640/04
Q v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 34425/04
The same case-law has been adopted by the Court under Article 3 of the Convention in cases concerning expulsions or extraditions whose execution was no longer possible (see Bilasi-Ashri v. Austria (dec.), no. 3314/02, ECHR 2002-X; Abraham Lunguli v. Sweden (dec.), no. 33692/02, 1 July 2003; Laleh Mir Isfahani v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31252/03, 31 January 2008; Bari v. Sweden (dec.), no. 56726/00, 5 March 2002; Hesam Safawi Bayat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 7233/02, 8 July 2003; R.N. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28242/02, 2 September 2003; Q v. Finland (dec.), no. 42640/04, 22 May 2007; Azzedine Chelghoum v. France (dec.), no. 54654/00, 10 October 2000; and Tony Chidobe v. Italy (dec.), no. 30978/04, 9 September 2004). - EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 25525/03
EL MAJJAOUI AND STICHTING TOUBA MOSKEE v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 34425/04
In El Majjaoui and Stichting Touba Moskee v. the Netherlands ((striking out) [GC], no. 25525/03, §§ 30-34, 20 December 2007), the Court reached similar findings in a very specific case, brought under Article 9 of the Convention, concerning the denial and then the delivery of a residence and work permit to a foreign imam. - EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 31252/03
MIR ISFAHANI c. PAYS-BAS
- EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 8776/05
KORDOGHLIAZAR c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 1872/04
IBRAHIM MOHAMED v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88
CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76
VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
CARDOT c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90
YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 22635/03
SULEJMANOVIC c. ITALIE
Même s'il est techniquement différent, je vois un autre exemple dans l'arrêt par lequel la Cour a récemment rayé du rôle une requête qui soulevait un problème sur le terrain de l'article 3. Dans cette affaire, la Cour a en effet considéré que le requérant avait perdu la qualité de victime à raison du fait que l'administration pénitentiaire - après trois ans et quatre mois - avait remédié à la situation dénoncée par le détenu dans sa requête, que la Cour n'avait pourtant pas considérée comme étant dépourvue de tout fondement (Stojanovic c. Serbie, no 34425/04, § 80, 19 mai 2009, avec mon opinion dissidente annexée). - EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 61365/16
S.E.v. SERBIA
Therefore, without prejudging the merits of the applicant's complaint, the Court considers that there is in fact no indication or evidence of any available legal remedy which would have addressed the root cause of the applicant's complaint and might have had any effect on the consequences of the violation alleged, which concerns the state of the law (see, mutatis mutandis, Valasinas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 44558/98, 14 March 2000, L. v. Lithuania, no. 27527/03, § 36, ECHR 2007-IV; Rodic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 22893/05, §§ 59-60, 27 May 2008; and Stojanovic v. Serbia, no. 34425/04, § 62, 19 May 2009). - EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 74857/13
CAPAN v. CROATIA
In order to ascertain whether that provision applies to the present case, the Court must answer two questions: first, whether the circumstances complained of directly by the applicant still obtain, and secondly whether the effects of a possible violation of the Convention have been redressed (see, for example, Stojanovic v. Serbia, no. 34425/04, § 80, 19 May 2009).