Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 72874/01 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,11101) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Wird zitiert von ... (20) Neu Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 18147/02
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY MOSCOW v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 72874/01
The Court has already found in similar cases that as long as the applicant organisations had retained the legal capacity to lodge an application with this Court, individual applicants could not themselves claim to be victims of a violation resulting from the domestic authorities" actions, which concerned the applicant organisations as such (see Church of Scientology Moscow and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 18147/02, 28 October 2004; Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, no. 302/02, § 168, 10 June 2010; see also The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, nos.According to the Court's well-established case-law, complaints concerning registration of religious organisations merit consideration under Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention (see Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, §§ 74-75, ECHR 2006-XI; Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia, no. 18147/02, § 64, 5 April 2007; Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, no. 302/02, § 161, 10 June 2010; Kimlya and Others v. Russia, nos.
- EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 302/02
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OF MOSCOW AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 72874/01
The Court has already found in similar cases that as long as the applicant organisations had retained the legal capacity to lodge an application with this Court, individual applicants could not themselves claim to be victims of a violation resulting from the domestic authorities" actions, which concerned the applicant organisations as such (see Church of Scientology Moscow and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 18147/02, 28 October 2004; Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, no. 302/02, § 168, 10 June 2010; see also The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, nos.According to the Court's well-established case-law, complaints concerning registration of religious organisations merit consideration under Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention (see Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, §§ 74-75, ECHR 2006-XI; Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia, no. 18147/02, § 64, 5 April 2007; Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, no. 302/02, § 161, 10 June 2010; Kimlya and Others v. Russia, nos.
- EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 47191/06
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF ST PETERSBURG AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 952/03
BISERICA ADEVARAT ORTODOXA DIN MOLDOVA v. MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 72874/01
In the above cases the Court concluded that either by denying registration to various religious groups, or by annulling their registration, the relevant authorities had interfered with the applicant organisations" right to freedom of religion and association, in violation of Article 11 of the Convention read in light of Article 9. In view of that finding, the Court did not consider it necessary to make a separate examination of the same facts from the standpoint of Article 14 of the Convention (see Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army, §§ 99-101; Church of Scientology Moscow, §§ 99-101; Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow and Others, §§ 187-88; Kimlya and Others, § 104; and Magyar Keresztény Mennonita Egyház and Others, §§ 116-18, all cited above; see also Biserica Adevarat Ortodoxa din Moldova and Others v. Moldova, no. 952/03, §§ 55-56, 27 February 2007). - EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 49683/99
ERTURK c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 72874/01
The general principles governing reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 § 4 are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see, among others, Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, §§ 53-54, 24 October 2002, and Ertürk v. Turkey (dec.) no.49683/99, 4 May 2006). - EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 70945/11
Ungarns Kirchengesetz verletzt die Menschenrechte
- EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 72881/01
BRANCHE DE MOSCOU DE L'ARMEE DU SALUT c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 72874/01
According to the Court's well-established case-law, complaints concerning registration of religious organisations merit consideration under Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention (see Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, §§ 74-75, ECHR 2006-XI; Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia, no. 18147/02, § 64, 5 April 2007; Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, no. 302/02, § 161, 10 June 2010; Kimlya and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 07.03.2006 - 74644/01
DONADZÉ c. GEORGIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 72874/01
In other words, an award can be made to an applicant in respect of costs and expenses only in so far as they have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, among other authorities, Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 79, ECHR 1999-II, and Donadzé v. Georgia, no. 74644/01, § 48, 7 March 2006). - EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03
SULWINSKA v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 72874/01
To this end, the Court examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03). - EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 36732/97
PISANO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 72874/01
The general principles governing reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 § 4 are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see, among others, Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, §§ 53-54, 24 October 2002, and Ertürk v. Turkey (dec.) no.49683/99, 4 May 2006). - EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 54977/12
MAGYARORSZÁGI EVANGÉLIUMI TESTVÉRKÖZÖSSÉG v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 76836/01
KIMLYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 34788/22
PACHUCKI c. ITALIE
Dans la mesure où le requérant conteste la somme proposée par le Gouvernement à titre de remboursement des frais engagés pour sa défense devant la Cour, cette dernière rappelle que les frais sont laissés à son appréciation lorsque la requête est rayée du rôle (Union des témoins de Jéhovah et autres c. Géorgie (déc.), no 72874/01, § 33, 21 avril 2015). - EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 22198/20
L.M. v. ITALY
The general principles governing reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 § 4 are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see, among others, Romanenco v. the Republic of Moldova (dec.), no. 39107/14, 25 March 2021; Union of Jehovah's Witnesses of Georgia v. Georgia (dec.), no. 72874/01, § 33, 21 April 2015; and Meriakri v. Moldova (dec.), no. 53487/99, § 33, 1 March 2005). - EGMR, 04.04.2023 - 79356/17
STASSART c. FRANCE
Selon l'article 43 § 4 du règlement de la Cour, lorsqu'une requête est rayée du rôle en vertu de l'article 37 de la Convention, les dépens sont laissés à l'appréciation de la Cour (voir, par exemple, Union des Témoins de Jéhovah et autres c. Géorgie (déc.), no 72874/01, § 33, 21 avril 2015, et Meriakri c. Moldova (radiation), no 53487/99, § 33, 1er mars 2005).
- EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 20319/21
KOBAS v. CROATIA
The general principles governing reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 § 4 are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, Union of Jehovah's Witnesses and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 72874/01, § 33, 21 April 2015). - EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 52873/20
N.K. c. SUISSE
Concernant les frais et dépens engagés pour la défense des intérêts du requérant devant les autorités internes et la Cour, cette dernière rappelle qu'ils sont laissés à son appréciation lorsque la requête est rayée du rôle (article 43 § 4 du Règlement de la Cour ; voir, par exemple, Union des témoins de Jéhovah et autres c. Géorgie (déc.), no 72874/01, § 33, 21 avril 2015). - EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 26101/20
G.L. ET E.L. c. ITALIE
La Cour rappelle, que selon l'article 43 § 4 du règlement, lorsqu'une requête est rayée du rôle en vertu de l'article 37 de la Convention, les dépens sont laissés à son appréciation (voir, par exemple, Union des témoins de Jéhovah et autres c. Géorgie, (déc.), no 72874/01, § 33, 21 avril 2015, et Meriakri c. Moldova (radiation), no 53487/99, § 33, 1er mars 2005). - EGMR, 23.09.2021 - 18550/20
PERINI c. ITALIE
La Cour rappelle, que selon l'article 43 § 4 du règlement, lorsqu'une requête est rayée du rôle en vertu de l'article 37 de la Convention, les dépens sont laissés à son appréciation (voir, par exemple, Union des témoins de Jéhovah et autres c. Géorgie, (déc.), no 72874/01, § 33, 21 avril 2015, et Meriakri c. Moldova (radiation), no 53487/99, § 33, 1er mars 2005). - EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 12470/21
A.A. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN
The general principles governing reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 § 4 are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, Union of Jehovah's Witnesses and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 72874/01, 21 April 2015). - EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 63384/13
NISTOR c. ROUMANIE
Néanmoins, elle observe que, selon l'article 43 § 4 du règlement de la Cour, lorsqu'une requête est rayée du rôle en vertu de l'article 37 de la Convention, les dépens sont laissés à l'appréciation de la Cour (voir, par exemple, Union des témoins de Jéhovah et autres c. Géorgie, (déc.), no 72874/01, § 33, 21 avril 2015 et les affaires qui y sont citées). - EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 629/14
REITH ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
Selon l'article 43 § 4 du règlement de la Cour, lorsqu'une requête est rayée du rôle en vertu de l'article 37 de la Convention, les dépens sont laissés à l'appréciation de la Cour (voir, par exemple, Union des témoins de Jéhovah et autres c. Géorgie (déc.), no 72874/01, § 33, 21 avril 2015, et Meriakri c. Moldova (radiation), no 53487/99, § 33, 1er mars 2005). - EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 43689/13
GARBIN c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 69817/12
GRAND ORIENT D'ITALIE DE PALAZZO GIUSTINIANI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 45371/16
BUEKENHOUT ET MOREELS c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 8245/15
CUCOS c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 04.02.2021 - 53914/07
ROTH ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 13.02.2020 - 70054/11
RED UNION FENOSA S.A. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 60266/14
SPIROVSKI v.
- EGMR, 24.01.2023 - 48200/21
ARMENI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 15472/19
RAHMAN c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 52168/12
ZURASHVILI v. GEORGIA