Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AL-NASHIF v. BULGARIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 9 MRK
  Preliminary objections dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies abuse of right of petition) Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 13 Not necessary to examine Art. 9 or 13+9 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 50963/99
• EGMR, 25.01.2001 - 50963/99
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 50963/99
• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 50963/99

Wird zitiert von ... (27)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 50963/99

  Consequently, the law must indicate the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, ECHR 2000-II, §§ 55 and 56, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, ECHR 2000-V, §§ 55-63, Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, ECHR 2000-XI, and the Klass and Others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28).

  As regards secret surveillance and the use of secret information for screening job candidates who would have access to sensitive information, Article 13 requires a remedy "as effective as it can be", having regard to the fact that it is inherent in any system of secret surveillance or secret checks that there would be a restricted scope for recourse (see the Klass and Others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, § 69, and the above cited Leander judgment, § 78).

• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 27798/95

  AMANN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 50963/99

  Consequently, the law must indicate the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, ECHR 2000-II, §§ 55 and 56, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, ECHR 2000-V, §§ 55-63, Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, ECHR 2000-XI, and the Klass and Others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28).

  In the case of Amann v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 27798/95, ECHR 2000-II) the applicant could appeal to a court.

• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  ROTARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 50963/99

  Consequently, the law must indicate the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, ECHR 2000-II, §§ 55 and 56, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, ECHR 2000-V, §§ 55-63, Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, ECHR 2000-XI, and the Klass and Others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28).

  No appeal was available to the applicant in Rotaru v. Romania ([GC], no. 28341/95, ECHR 2000-V) - a case that also concerned the storage and use of secret information - and the Court found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (see also Hewitt and Harman v. the United Kingdom, no. 12175/86, Commission report of 9 May1989).

 
• EKMR, 12.05.1988 - 12175/86

  P.H. and H.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 50963/99

  No appeal was available to the applicant in Rotaru v. Romania ([GC], no. 28341/95, ECHR 2000-V) - a case that also concerned the storage and use of secret information - and the Court found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (see also Hewitt and Harman v. the United Kingdom, no. 12175/86, Commission report of 9 May1989).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 50963/99

  Also, even if a single remedy does not by itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so (see Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, unreported, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI, § 152, and T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28945/95, ECHR 2001-V, § 107).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 50963/99

  The person concerned should have access to a court and the opportunity to be heard either in person or through some form of representation (see the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, §§ 73-76, the Winterwerp v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, §§ 60 and 61, the Kurt v. Turkey judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, § 123, and Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, ECHR 2000-X, § 58).
• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 29192/95

  Ausländer, Aufenthaltserlaubnis, Ausweisung, Familienangehörige, Kinder, Schutz …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 50963/99

  Nevertheless, it follows from the concept of family on which Article 8 is based that a child born of a marital union is ipso jure part of that relationship; hence, from the moment of the child's birth and by the very fact of it, there exists between him and his parents a bond amounting to "family life" which subsequent events cannot break save in exceptional circumstances (see the Berrehab v. the Netherlands judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 138, p. 14, § 21, the Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 19, § 54, the Gül v. Switzerland judgment of 19 February 1996, Reports 1996, § 32, and Ciliz v. the Netherlands, no. 29192/95, §§ 59 and 60, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 50963/99

  Nevertheless, it follows from the concept of family on which Article 8 is based that a child born of a marital union is ipso jure part of that relationship; hence, from the moment of the child's birth and by the very fact of it, there exists between him and his parents a bond amounting to "family life" which subsequent events cannot break save in exceptional circumstances (see the Berrehab v. the Netherlands judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 138, p. 14, § 21, the Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 19, § 54, the Gül v. Switzerland judgment of 19 February 1996, Reports 1996, § 32, and Ciliz v. the Netherlands, no. 29192/95, §§ 59 and 60, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10730/84

  BERREHAB v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 50963/99

  Nevertheless, it follows from the concept of family on which Article 8 is based that a child born of a marital union is ipso jure part of that relationship; hence, from the moment of the child's birth and by the very fact of it, there exists between him and his parents a bond amounting to "family life" which subsequent events cannot break save in exceptional circumstances (see the Berrehab v. the Netherlands judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 138, p. 14, § 21, the Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 19, § 54, the Gül v. Switzerland judgment of 19 February 1996, Reports 1996, § 32, and Ciliz v. the Netherlands, no. 29192/95, §§ 59 and 60, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.10.1994 - 18535/91

  KROON AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 50963/99

  When deciding whether a relationship can be said to amount to "family life", a number of factors may be relevant, including whether the couple live together, the length of their relationship and whether they have demonstrated their commitment to each other by having children together or by any other means (see the Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 27 October 1994, Series A no. 297-C, pp. 55-56, § 30, and the X, Y and Z v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 April 1997, Reports 1997-II, § 36).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30985/96

  HASSAN ET TCHAOUCH c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 02.08.2001 - 54273/00

  BOULTIF v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

  Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

  Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens

  First, in the case of applications which were knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X), whether there had been falsification of documents in the file (see, for example, Jian v. Romania (dec.), no. 46640/99, 30 March 2004) or failure to inform the Court of an essential item of evidence for its examination of the case (see, for example, Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 89, 20 June 2002, and Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006) or of new major developments in the course of the proceedings (see, for example, Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-27, 2 December 2008).
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 4158/05

  GILLAN ET QUINTON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  They gave notice to citizens that they might be required to submit to a stop and search and provided safeguards against abuse, well in excess of provisions of national law that the Court or Commission in cases had held to be sufficiently foreseeable in the national security context (as in, for example, Brind v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 18714/91, 9 May 1994; Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, §§ 117-129, 20 June 2002; Esbester v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 18601/91, 2 April 1993).

  Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise (Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-V; Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 4, ECHR 2000-XI; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; see also, amongst other examples, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, §§ 88-90, Series A no. 61; Funke v. France, §§ 56-57, judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A; Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 119, 20 June 2002; Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 44363/02, § 62, 1 February 2007; Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, § 46, ECHR 2007-XI (extracts); Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 125, 12 June 2008; Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia, no. 32283/04, § 81, 17 June 2008).

• EuG, 12.12.2006 - T-228/02

  und Sicherheitspolitik - DAS GERICHT ERKLÄRT DEN BESCHLUSS DES RATES FÜR NICHTIG, …

  Die Frage, ob dem Kläger und/oder seinen Anwälten als vertraulich bezeichnete Beweismittel und Informationen mitgeteilt werden können oder ob deren Mitteilung nach einem besonderen Verfahren, das noch in der Weise festzulegen ist, dass die betreffenden öffentlichen Interessen gewahrt werden und gleichzeitig dem Betroffenen ausreichender Rechtsschutz gewährt wird, auf das Gericht beschränkt werden muss, ist eine andere Frage, die das Gericht im Rahmen der vorliegenden Klage nicht zu beantworten braucht (vgl. jedoch EGMR, Urteile Chahal/Vereinigtes Königreich, oben in Randnr. 135 angeführt, §§ 131 und 144, Tinnelly & Sons u. a. und McElduff u. a./Vereinigtes Königreich, oben in Randnr. 119 angeführt, §§ 49, 51, 52 und 78, Jasper/Vereinigtes Königreich, oben in Randnr. 135 angeführt, §§ 51 bis 53, und Al-Nashif/Bulgarien vom 20. Juni 2002, Nr. 50963/99, nicht im Recueil des arrêts et décisions veröffentlicht, §§ 95 bis 97, sowie Punkt IX.4 der oben in Randnr. 111 angeführten Leitlinien des Ministerkomitees des Europarats).

 
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 3976/05

  SERIFE YIGIT c. TURQUIE

  La notion de « famille'ne se limite pas aux seules relations fondées sur le mariage mais peut englober d'autres liens « familiaux'de facto lorsque les parties cohabitent en dehors du mariage (Keegan c. Irlande, 26 mai 1994, § 44, série A no 290, et Al-Nashif c. Bulgarie, no 50963/99, § 112, 20 juin 2002).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 27.02.2020 - C-18/19

  Stadt Frankfurt am Main - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Raum der Freiheit, der …

  93 Aus der Rechtsprechung des EGMR geht hervor, dass der erforderliche Rechtsbehelf mit ausreichender Sicherheit - nicht nur in der Theorie, sondern auch in der Praxis - bestehen muss, weil es ihm andernfalls an der erforderlichen Zugänglichkeit und Wirksamkeit mangelt (EGMR, 11. Oktober 2007, Nasrulloyev/Russland, CE:ECHR:2007:1011JUD000065606, § 86, und EGMR, 5. April 2011, Rahimi/Griechenland, CE:ECHR:2011:0405JUD000868708, §§ 120 und 121, zum mangelnden Zugang zu einem Rechtsbehelf, weil die Broschüre nicht in einer Sprache abgefasst war, die der Beschwerdeführer verstand), und dass er während der Haftzeit kurzfristig möglich sein und bei einer unabhängigen und unparteiischen Justizbehörde eingelegt werden können muss, mit der Möglichkeit, gegebenenfalls zur Freilassung der betreffenden Person zu führen (EGMR, 20. Juni 2002, Al-Nashif/Bulgarien, CE:ECHR:2002:0620JUD005096399, § 92, und EGMR, 11. Oktober 2007, Nasrulloyev/Russland, CE:ECHR:2007:1011JUD000065606, § 86), oder zumindest zu einer angemessenen Abhilfe mit einer Verbesserung der materiellen Haftbedingungen (EGMR, 21. Mai 2015, Yengo/Frankreich, CE:ECHR:2015:0521JUD005049412, §§ 58 bis 62).
• EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 67810/10

  GROSS v. SWITZERLAND

  Toutefois, même dans de tels cas, l'intention de l'intéressé d'induire la Cour en erreur doit toujours être établie avec suffisamment de certitude (Al-Nashif c. Bulgarie, no 50963/99, § 9, 20 juin 2002, Melnik c. Ukraine, no 72286/01, §§ 58-60, 28 mars 2006, Nold c. Allemagne, no 27250/02, § 87, 29 juin 2006, et Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. et Di Stefano, ibidem).
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 24117/08

  BERNH LARSEN HOLDING AS AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-V; Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 4, ECHR 2000-XI; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; see also, amongst other examples, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, §§ 88-90, Series A no. 61; Funke v. France, §§ 56-57, judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A; Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 119, 20 June 2002; Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 44363/02, § 62, 1 February 2007; Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, § 46, ECHR 2007-XI (extracts); Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 125, 12 June 2008; and Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia, no. 32283/04, § 81, 17 June 2008).
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Consequently, the law must indicate the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, in order to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see, for instance, Lupsa v. Romania, no. 10337/04, §§ 32 and 34, ECHR 2006-..., and Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 119, 20 June 2002).
• EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 20999/04

  ÖZPINAR c. TURQUIE

  Devant cet organe de contrôle, la personne concernée doit bénéficier d'une procédure contradictoire afin de pouvoir présenter son point de vue et réfuter les arguments des autorités (voir, mutatis mutandis, Al-Nashif c. Bulgarie, no 50963/99, §§ 123 et 124, 20 juin 2002, et Lupsa c. Roumanie, no 10337/04, § 38, CEDH 2006-VII).
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 34621/03

  AHMED c. ROUMANIE

  Quant à la prévisibilité, la Cour rappelle que certes, dans le contexte particulier de mesures touchant à la sécurité nationale, l'exigence de prévisibilité ne saurait être la même qu'en maints autres domaines (Leander c. Suède, 26 mars 1987, § 51, série A no 116 et Al-Nashif c. Bulgarie, no 50963/99, § 121, 20 juin 2002).

  La Cour relève d'emblée qu'en cas d'expulsion, outre la protection qui leur est offerte notamment par les articles 3 et 8 de la Convention combinés avec l'article 13, 1es étrangers bénéficient des garanties spécifiques prévues par l'article 1 du Protocole no 7 (voir, mutatis mutandis, Al-Nashif c. Bulgarie, no 50963/99, § 132, 20 juin 2002).

• EGMR, 04.02.2014 - 25376/06

  CENI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  VLASOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 2853/09

  TAKUSH c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

  ASALYA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 72034/01

  DRUZSTEVNÍ ZÁLOZNA PRIA AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11

  KOWAL v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 32897/16

  LOPEZ MARTINEZ c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 23.08.2011 - 11303/02

  BASILEO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 40933/02

  AL-AGHA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 23693/03

  BOJOLYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

  LIU v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 57960/11

  VOROZHBA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 16282/08

  ATHANASIADIS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 38238/04

  FORMINSTER ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 15.05.2003 - 76878/01

  GRIBENKO contre la LETTONIE
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 73485/01

  VASILEVSKIY c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 12.07.2011 - 12919/04

  BALTAJI c. BULGARIE