Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  COMMUNIST PARTY OF RUSSIA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) No violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (21)

• EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79

  Inze ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 29400/05

  The Court considers that, even though it has not found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the case at hand, the applicants" complaints can be said to "fall within the ambit" of that provision (see Inze v. Austria, 28 October 1987, §§ 43-45, Series A no. 126).
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 29400/05

  Lastly, the applicant must indicate the grounds for such unequal treatment and demonstrate that such a distinction had no objective and reasonable justification (see, amongst other authorities, Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV; Unal Tekeli v. Turkey, no. 29865/96, § 49, 16 November 2004, and Okpisz v. Germany, no. 59140/00, § 33, 25 October 2005).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13914/88

  INFORMATIONSVEREIN LENTIA AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 29400/05

  In the context of elections the duty of the State to adopt some positive measures to secure pluralism of views has also been recognised by the Court (see, for example, Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, § 54; see also, mutatis mutandis, Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 276, § 38, and Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v. Russia, nos. 55066/00 and 55638/00, §§ 71-72, 11 January 2007).

 
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 29865/96

  Diskriminierung türkischer Ehefrauen durch Verpflichtung zur Tragung des Namens …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 29400/05

  Lastly, the applicant must indicate the grounds for such unequal treatment and demonstrate that such a distinction had no objective and reasonable justification (see, amongst other authorities, Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV; Unal Tekeli v. Turkey, no. 29865/96, § 49, 16 November 2004, and Okpisz v. Germany, no. 59140/00, § 33, 25 October 2005).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 29400/05

  In the 1987 case of Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium (judgment of 2 March 1987, § 54, Series A no. 113), the Court noted that this part of Article 3 "implies essentially - apart from freedom of expression... - the principle of equality of treatment...".
• EKMR, 28.02.1994 - 18997/91

  I.Z. v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 29400/05

  At the same time, the principle of subsidiarity does not prevent the Court from reviewing factual findings of the domestic courts if they are "arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable" (see I.Z. v. Greece, no. 18997/91, Commission decision of 28 February 1994, Decisions and Reports (DR) 76-B, p. 65, at p. 68, and Babenko v. Ukraine, (dec.), no. 43476/98, 4 May 1999; see also Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007; Camilleri v. Malta (dec.), no. 51760/99, 16 March 2000; and Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, § 189, 17 May 2010).
• EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 37700/05

  SEYIDZADE v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 29400/05

  In those cases the measure complained of lay within the legal field, and, therefore, could be easily identified and analysed (see, for example, the cases concerning electoral thresholds (Yumak and Sadak, cited above), the right of prisoners to vote (Hirst, cited above), criteria of eligibility of candidates on account of their political affiliation or other status (Ždanoka, cited above; Seyidzade v. Azerbaijan, no. 37700/05, 3 December 2009), compositions of electoral commissions (The Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia, no. 9103/04, ECHR 2008), restrictions on reporting on a particular political movement (Purcell and Others v. Ireland, no. 15404/89, 16 April 1991), or impossibility for nationals living abroad to vote (Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos v. Greece [GC], no. 42202/07, 15 March 2012).
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 13716/02

  SUKHOVETSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 29400/05

  In examining this question the Court will bear in mind that "States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in the field of electoral legislation" (see Sukhovetskyy v. Ukraine, no. 13716/02, § 68, ECHR 2006-VI), which is a fortiori true where the case concerns the extent of the State's positive obligations, and that the State is only required to take those measures which are "reasonably available" (see, mutatis mutandis, E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, § 99, 26 November 2002).
• EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 77568/01

  PETKOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 29400/05

  and 72 et seq., that "the scope of the Contracting States" obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint;... the remedy must be effective in practice as well as in law in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or remedying the impugned state of affairs, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred" (see Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, § 74, 11 June 2009).
• EGMR, 04.05.1999 - 43476/98

  BABENKO contre l'UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 29400/05

  At the same time, the principle of subsidiarity does not prevent the Court from reviewing factual findings of the domestic courts if they are "arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable" (see I.Z. v. Greece, no. 18997/91, Commission decision of 28 February 1994, Decisions and Reports (DR) 76-B, p. 65, at p. 68, and Babenko v. Ukraine, (dec.), no. 43476/98, 4 May 1999; see also Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007; Camilleri v. Malta (dec.), no. 51760/99, 16 March 2000; and Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, § 189, 17 May 2010).
• EKMR, 16.04.1991 - 15404/89

  PURCELL AND OTHERS c. IRLANDE
• EGMR, 26.11.2002 - 33218/96

  E. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 178/02
• EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 51760/99

  CAMILLERI v. MALTA
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 13936/02

  MANOLE ET AUTRES c. MOLDOVA
• EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 25060/94

  HAIDER c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 10226/03

  Yumak und Sadak ./. Türkei
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 25.05.2004 - 994/03

  CORNELIS c. PAYS-BAS

• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 28881/07

  ORAN c. TURQUIE

  C'est pourquoi il est particulièrement important, en période préélectorale, de permettre aux opinions et aux informations de tous ordres de circuler librement (Parti communiste de la Russie et autres c. Russie, no 29400/05, § 107, 19 juin 2012).

  En ce qui concerne l'accès des candidats à la radio et à la télévision, la majorité rappelle à juste titre l'importance, en période préélectorale, de permettre aux opinions et aux informations de tous ordres de circuler librement (paragraphe 51 de l'arrêt, où elle renvoie à l'arrêt Parti communiste de la Russie et autres c. Russie, no 29400/05, § 107, 19 juin 2012).

• EGMR, 10.07.2020 - 310/15

  MUGEMANGANGO c. BELGIQUE

  Thirdly, as stated above, at least in some cases it will be necessary to examine the observance of the substantive standards of free elections (see, for instance, Communist Party of Russia and Others v. Russia, no. 29400/05, §§ 123-28, 19 June 2012) and, moreover, to do so in the light of domestic law (see, for instance, Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC], no. 10226/03, §§ 116-48, ECHR 2008; Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos v. Greece [GC], no. 42202/07, §§ 76-81, ECHR 2012; Oran v. Turkey, nos. 28881/07 and 37920/07, §§ 55-68, 15 April 2014; and Mihaela Mihai Neagu v. Romania (dec.), no. 66345/09, §§ 34-42, 6 March 2014).
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 49197/06

  SÜKRAN AYDIN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Compte tenu du contexte spécifique des élections et du fait que des élections libres sont inconcevables sans la libre circulation des opinions et des informations politiques (voir, par exemple, Parti communiste de la Russie et autres c. Russie, no 29400/05, § 79, 19 juin 2012), la Cour estime que le droit de communiquer ses opinions ou ses idées politiques et le droit d'autrui de les recevoir seraient vides de sens si la possibilité d'employer une langue capable de véhiculer convenablement ces opinions et idées était réduite par la menace de sanctions pénales.

 
• EGMR, 02.05.2023 - 24108/15

  MESTAN c. BULGARIE

  Compte tenu de la circonstance particulière d'un contexte électoral et du fait que des élections libres sont inconcevables sans une libre circulation des opinions et des informations politiques (voir, par exemple, Parti communiste de la Russie et autres c. Russie, no 29400/05, § 79, 19 juin 2012, Sükran Aydin et autres, précité, § 55, ainsi que les références citées au paragraphe 54 ci-dessus), la Cour estime que le droit pour une personne de communiquer ses opinions ou ses idées politiques et le droit pour autrui de recevoir de telles informations seraient vides de sens si la possibilité d'employer une langue capable de véhiculer convenablement ces opinions et idées était obérée par la menace de sanctions, fussent-elles de nature administrative.
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 45104/05

  KOTELNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that it is not its task to substitute itself for the domestic courts and conduct a fresh assessment of evidence (see Communist Party of Russia and Others v. Russia, no. 29400/05, § 122, 19 June 2012).
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 30244/11

  FILINI c. GRÈCE

  La Cour rappelle que, selon sa jurisprudence constante, les procédures concernant le contentieux électoral échappent en principe au champ d'application de l'article 6 de la Convention, dans la mesure où celles-ci concernent l'exercice de droits de caractère politique et ne portent donc pas sur des « droits et obligations de caractère civil'ou sur le « bien-fondé d'une accusation en matière pénale'(voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Pierre-Bloch c. France, 21 octobre 1997, §§ 49-52, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-VI ; Hajili c. Azerbaïdjan, no 6984/06, § 63, 10 janvier 2012 ; Parti communiste de Russie et autres c. Russie, no 29400/05, § 143, 19 juin 2012).
• EGMR - 65678/14 (anhängig)

  E.C. v. HUNGARY and 1 other application

  Alternatively, was the practice of minority elections compatible with the State's obligation under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to adopt positive measures to hold elections "under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature" (see, for instance, Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC], no. 10226/03, § 106, ECHR 2008; and Communist Party of Russia and Others v. Russia, no. 29400/05, § 107, 19 June 2012)?.