Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BERDZENISHVILI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-general (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 17, Art. 18, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 A... rt. 2 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 4, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 14594/07, 14597/07, 14976/07, 14978/07, 15221/07, 16369/07, 16706/07
• EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 14594/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 13255/07

  Georgien ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 14594/07

  On 9 February 2010 a Chamber of the former Fifth Section decided to communicate the applications to the Government for information and to adjourn their examination pending the outcome of the proceedings in the inter-State case Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC] (no. 13255/07).

  Some of the Georgian nationals against whom expulsion orders were issued left the territory of the Russian Federation by their own means (for further details as to the background of the case see Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, § 45, ECHR 2014).

• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08

  MAKTOUF ET DAMJANOVIC c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 14594/07

  The Court requires itemised bills and invoices that are sufficiently detailed to enable it to determine to what extent the above requirements have been met (see Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 94, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 14594/07

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 has been consistently interpreted by the Court as requiring a remedy in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, for example, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, pp. 23-24, § 54).

 
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 50390/99

  McGLINCHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 14594/07

  The provided remedy must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 62, ECHR 2003-V, with further references).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 14594/07

  However, the difference between both concepts is not one of nature or substance but one of degree or intensity (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 115, ECHR 2012, Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, §§ 92, 93, Series A no. 39).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 14594/07

  However, the difference between both concepts is not one of nature or substance but one of degree or intensity (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 115, ECHR 2012, Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, §§ 92, 93, Series A no. 39).
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06

  SARGSYAN c. AZERBAÏDJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 14594/07

  Accordingly, the Court finds that the applicants have not made a prima facie case and that the information in the Court's possession does not suffice to establish that the applicants" son had been detained on 9 October 2006 or that the applicants had to leave behind their car (see, mutatis mutandis, Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, § 183, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 25.06.2015 - 25521/10

  SAYDULKHANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 14594/07

  Under certain circumstances the Court has borne in mind the difficulties associated with obtaining evidence and the fact that often little evidence can be submitted by the applicants in support of their applications (Saydulkhanova v. Russia, no. 25521/10, § 56, 25 June 2015).