Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NOSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim) Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings Article 6-1 - Access to ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 9117/04, 10441/04
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 9117/04

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 9117/04

  30562/04 and 30566/04, § 101, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 06.03.2007 - 73333/01

  ÇILOGLU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 9117/04

  That being said, the Court has already found that after a certain lapse of time long enough for the participants to attain their objectives, the dispersal of an unlawful assembly may be considered to be justified in the interests of public order and the protection of the rights of others in order, for example, to prevent the deterioration of sanitary conditions or to stop the disruption of traffic caused by the assembly (see Cisse v. France, no. 51346/99, §§ 50-54, ECHR 2002-III, and ÇiloÄŸlu and Others v. Turkey, no. 73333/01, §§ 49-53, 6 March 2007).
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 25691/04

  BUKTA ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 9117/04

  In the Court's view, where participants do not engage in acts of violence it is important for the public authorities to show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful assemblies if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (see Oya Ataman, cited above, §§ 38-42; Galstyan, cited above, §§ 116-117, 15 November 2007; and Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 37, ECHR 2007-III).

 
• EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97

  ADALI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 9117/04

  In view of the essential nature of freedom of assembly and its close relationship with democracy there must be convincing and compelling reasons to justify an interference with this right (see Ouranio Toxo and Others v. Greece, no. 74989/01, § 36, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), and Adalı v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, § 267, 31 March 2005, with further references).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 9117/04

  30562/04 and 30566/04, § 101, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 21417/04

  SHIRYAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 9117/04

  Furthermore, in some cases concerning non-enforcement of court judgments, the Court recognised the right of the relatives of the deceased applicant to pursue the application (see Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417/04, §§ 8-9, 13 July 2006; Sobelin and Others v. Russia, nos. 30672/03 et al., §§ 43-45, 3 May 2007; and Streltsov and other "Novocherkassk military pensioners" cases v. Russia, nos. 8549/06 et al., §§ 36-42, 29 July 2010).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 9117/04

  However, in a more recent judgment (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007-II) the Court established two criteria of applicability of Article 6 to such disputes.
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 9117/04

  The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case his or her heirs may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 44079/98

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN AND IVANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 9117/04

  An order to change the time or the place of the assembly may constitute an interference as well (see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44079/98, § 103, 20 October 2005, and Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, §§ 47-51, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 30672/03

  SOBELIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 9117/04

  Furthermore, in some cases concerning non-enforcement of court judgments, the Court recognised the right of the relatives of the deceased applicant to pursue the application (see Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417/04, §§ 8-9, 13 July 2006; Sobelin and Others v. Russia, nos. 30672/03 et al., §§ 43-45, 3 May 2007; and Streltsov and other "Novocherkassk military pensioners" cases v. Russia, nos. 8549/06 et al., §§ 36-42, 29 July 2010).
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 8549/06

  STRELTSOV AND OTHER
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 30385/07

  SZERDAHELYI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06

  BERLADIR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95

  PELLEGRIN v. FRANCE

• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 50271/06

  RYABININA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Furthermore, the Court recognised the right of the relatives of the deceased applicant to pursue the application concerning the exercise of the right to freedom of assembly (see Szerdahelyi v. Hungary, no. 30385/07, §§ 19-22, 17 January 2012, and Nosov and Others v. Russia, nos. 9117/04 and 10441/04, §§ 28-30, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 42267/15

  PALIY v. RUSSIA

  9117/04 and 10441/04, 15 January 2015; Dzhabrailovy v. Russia (revision), no. 68860/10, 4 February 2016; Zherdev v. Ukraine (revision), no. 34015/07, 25 January 2018; and Tkachenko v. Russia (revision), no. 28046/05, 10 November 2020), the Court considers that the judgment of 14 December 2021 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, the relevant parts of which provide:.
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 51165/08

  MILINOV v. RUSSIA

  In a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of proceedings, the Court has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or close family members expressing a wish to pursue the proceedings before it (see, for instance, Hanbayat v. Turkey, no. 18378/02, §§ 20-21, 17 July 2007; Szerdahelyi v. Hungary, no. 30385/07, §§ 19-22, 17 January 2012; Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, §§ 97-101, ECHR 2013; and Nosov and Others v. Russia, nos. 9117/04 and 10441/04, §§ 28-30, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 50236/06

  SHATOKHIN v. RUSSIA

  9117/04 and 10441/04, 15 January 2015; Dzhabrailovy v. Russia (revision), no. 68860/10, 4 February 2016; and Zherdev v. Ukraine (revision), no. 34015/07, 25 January 2018).
• EGMR, 25.02.2020 - 31333/07

  DUBROVINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Furthermore, the Court has recognised the right of the relatives of a deceased applicant to pursue an application concerning the exercise of the right to freedom of assembly (see Szerdahelyi v. Hungary, no. 30385/07, §§ 19-22, 17 January 2012, and Nosov and Others v. Russia, nos. 9117/04 and 10441/04, §§ 28-30, 20 February 2014).