Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,43605
EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00 (https://dejure.org/2006,43605)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.12.2006 - 55565/00 (https://dejure.org/2006,43605)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. Dezember 2006 - 55565/00 (https://dejure.org/2006,43605)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,43605) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    BARTIK v. RUSSIA

    Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 34 MRK
    Preliminary objection dismissed (victim) Violation of P4-2 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and Convention proceedings ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    BARTIK c. RUSSIE

    Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 34 MRK
    Exception préliminaire rejetée (victime) Violation de P4-2 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédures nationale et de la Convention (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

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

  • EKMR, 13.10.1993 - 19076/91

    NORDBLAD v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00
    Les organes de la Convention ont précédemment admis des restrictions imposées à la suite d'un refus de se conformer aux obligations du service militaire (Marangos c. Chypre, no 31106/96, décision de la Commission du 20 mai 1997, non publiée), ou des restrictions à la liberté de circulation d'une personne handicapée mentale qui ne disposait pas des structures de soin nécessaires dans le pays de destination (Nordblad c. Suède, no 19076/91, décision de la Commission du 13 octobre 1993, non publiée).
  • EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 32190/96

    LUORDO c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00
    La Cour a eu à examiner le retrait de documents de voyage et de passeports dans des requêtes relatives à des procédures pénales ou de faillite concernant des requérants ou des tiers (voir, par exemple, Luordo c. Italie, no 32190/96, CEDH 2003-IX).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95

    CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00
    Une décision ou mesure favorable au requérant ne suffit pas en principe à lui retirer la qualité de victime en l'absence de telles mesures de reconnaissance et de réparation (Constantinescu c. Roumanie, no 28871/95, § 40, CEDH 2000-VIII).
  • EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 33933/96

    GUISSET c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00
    Pour autant que la déclaration du Gouvernement peut se comprendre comme une contestation de la qualité de «victime» du requérant quant à la violation alléguée, la Cour rappelle qu'un requérant ne cesse d'avoir la qualité de victime au sens de l'article 34 que si les autorités nationales ont reconnu explicitement ou en substance, puis réparé, les violations qu'il allègue (Guisset c. France, no 33933/96, §§ 66-67, CEDH 2000-IX).
  • EGMR, 07.08.1998 - 31106/96

    MARANGOS c. CHYPRE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00
    Les organes de la Convention ont précédemment admis des restrictions imposées à la suite d'un refus de se conformer aux obligations du service militaire (Marangos c. Chypre, no 31106/96, décision de la Commission du 20 mai 1997, non publiée), ou des restrictions à la liberté de circulation d'une personne handicapée mentale qui ne disposait pas des structures de soin nécessaires dans le pays de destination (Nordblad c. Suède, no 19076/91, décision de la Commission du 13 octobre 1993, non publiée).
  • EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

    RAIMONDO v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00
    Le critère applicable est néanmoins similaire: afin d'être conforme à l'article 2 du Protocole no 4, pareille restriction doit être «prévue par la loi», inspirée par l'un ou plusieurs des buts légitimes prévus au paragraphe 3 du même article et «nécessaire dans une société démocratique» (Raimondo c. Italie, 22 février 1994, § 39, série A no 281-A, et Napijalo, arrêt précité, § 74).
  • EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

    BAUMANN v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00
    En particulier, la mesure au moyen de laquelle un individu se trouve dépossédé d'un document d'identification qui lui permettrait, s'il le souhaitait, de quitter le pays s'analyse en une ingérence au sens de l'article 2 du Protocole no 4 (Napijalo, arrêt précité, §§ 69 et 73 ; Baumann c. France, no 33592/96, § 62, CEDH 2001-V ; et Timichev c. Russie (déc.), nos 55762/00 et 55974/00, 30 mars 2004).
  • EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29713/05

    STAMOSE v. BULGARIA

    In previous cases under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 the Court (or the former European Commission of Human Rights) has been concerned with such bans imposed in connection with pending criminal proceedings (see Schmid v. Austria, no. 10670/83, Commission decision of 9 July 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 44, p. 195; Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, ECHR 2001-V; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, ECHR 2006-XII; Sissanis v. Romania, no. 23468/02, 25 January 2007; Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, 21 October 2008; A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, 31 March 2009; Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 23530/02, 2 July 2009; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, 20 January 2011; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, 17 February 2011; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, 7 June 2011; and Miazdzyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, 24 January 2012), enforcement of criminal sentences (see M. v. Germany, no. 10307/83, Commission decision of 6 March 1984, DR 37, p. 113), lack of rehabilitation in respect of criminal offences (see Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, 10 February 2011), pending bankruptcy proceedings (see Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, ECHR 2003-IX), refusal to pay customs penalties (see Napijalo v. Croatia, no. 66485/01, 13 November 2003), failure to pay taxes (see Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, 23 May 2006), failure to pay judgment debts to private persons (see Ignatov v. Bulgaria, no. 50/02, 2 July 2009, and Gochev v. Bulgaria, no. 34383/03, 26 November 2009), knowledge of "State secrets" (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, ECHR 2006-XV), failure to comply with military-service obligations (see Peltonen v. Finland, no. 19583/92, Commission decision of 20 February 1995, DR 80-a, p. 38, and Marangos v. Cyprus, no. 31106/96, Commission decision of 20 May 1997, unreported), mental illness coupled with a lack of arrangements for appropriate care in the destination country (see Nordblad v. Sweden, no. 19076/91, Commission decision of 13 October 1993, unreported), and court orders prohibiting minor children from being removed to a foreign country (see Roldan Texeira and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 40655/98, 26 October 2000, and Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, 27 September 2011).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 28975/05

    KHLYUSTOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court has examined the proportionality of travel restrictions which were imposed in various contexts: a travel ban imposed as a measure of police supervision of a person suspected of having connections with the Mafia (see Labita, cited above, §§ 193-197); the seizure, as part of the on-the-spot investigation, and subsequent confiscation of a passport of a person who was neither prosecuted nor considered to be a witness in the criminal proceedings (see Baumann, cited above, §§ 65-67); a prohibition on a bankrupt moving away from his place of residence for the duration of the bankruptcy proceedings (see Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, §§ 96-97, ECHR 2003-IX); the seizure of the applicant's passport for refusal to pay a fine for a customs offence (see Napijalo v. Croatia, no. 66485/01, §§ 78-82, 13 November 2003); an obligation not to abscond imposed on a suspect pending criminal proceedings against him (see, among many other examples, Fedorov and Fedorova v. Russia, no. 31008/02, §§ 39-47, 13 October 2005; Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, §§ 59-67, 22 November 2005; Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, §§ 90-97, 7 December 2006; Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, §§ 60-69, 10 July 2008; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, §§ 39-46, 20 January 2011; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, §§ 55-58, 17 February 2011; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, §§ 47-52, 7 June 2011; and Miazdzyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, §§ 33-42, 24 January 2012); travel restrictions imposed for refusal to pay a tax debt (see Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, §§ 118-130, 23 May 2006); travel restrictions imposed on account of knowledge of State secrets (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, §§ 44-52, ECHR 2006-XV, and Soltysyak v. Russia, no. 4663/05, §§ 46-54, 10 February 2011); court orders prohibiting minor children from being removed to a foreign country (see Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, §§ 214-215, 27 September 2011); and a travel ban imposed on account of a breach of the immigration rules of another country (see Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, §§ 33-37, 27 November 2012).
  • EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 5871/07

    BERKOVICH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is supervising the execution of the Court's judgments in the cases of Bartik v. Russia (no. 55565/00, ECHR 2006-XV) and Soltysyak v. Russia (no. 4663/05, 10 February 2011), in which the Court found a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 on account of an unjustified restriction on the applicants" right to leave Russia.
  • EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13

    MURSALIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

    62775/16 and 43327/16 cannot deprive them of their victim status under the Convention, and that they are still victims within the meaning of the Convention in respect of their complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, § 34, ECHR 2006-XV, and Berkovich and Others v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 51279/09

    VLASOV AND BENYASH v. RUSSIA

    A measure by means of which an individual is denied the use of a document which, had he so wished, would have permitted him to leave the country, amounts to an interference within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and must meet the requirements of paragraph 3 of that Article (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, § 36, ECHR 2006-XV, and Napijalo v. Croatia, no. 66485/01, § 68, 13 November 2003).
  • EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4663/05

    SOLTYSYAK v. RUSSIA

    In particular, a measure by means of which an individual is denied the use of a document which, had he so wished, would have permitted him to leave the country, amounts to an interference within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, § 36, ECHR 2006-XV; Timishev v. Russia (dec.), nos.
  • EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 32963/16

    NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA

    Accordingly, he may still claim to be a "victim" of the alleged violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, §§ 32-34, ECHR 2006-XV).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht