Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NOVOSSELETSKI c. UKRAINE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 8 Violation de P1-1 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NOVOSELETSKIY v. UKRAINE [Extracts]

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 11.03.2003 - 47148/99
• EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 47148/99
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 47148/99

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  OZGUR GUNDEM c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 47148/99

  Nor must such an obligation be interpreted in such a way as to impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 43, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 4143/02

  MORENO GÓMEZ c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 47148/99

  Furthermore, even in relation to the positive obligations flowing from the first paragraph of Article 8, in striking the required balance the aims mentioned in the second paragraph may be of a certain relevance (see Moreno Gómez v. Spain, no. 4143/02, § 55, ECHR 2004-X).
• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 35091/02

  MIKHAÏLENKI ET AUTRES c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 47148/99

  35091/02, 35196/02, 35201/02, 35204/02, 35945/02, 35949/02, 35953/02, 36800/02, 38296/02 and 42814/02, § 45, ECHR 2004-XII).
• EKMR, 08.09.1997 - 35216/97

  RENFE contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 47148/99

  The Court concludes, therefore, that the Institute performs "public duties" assigned to it by law and under the supervision of the authorities, namely the management and distribution of its part of the State housing stock, with the result that it can be considered as a "governmental organisation" within the meaning of the Court's case-law (see The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-A, p, 28, § 49; Radio France and Others v. France (dec.), no. 53984/00, § 26, ECHR 2003-X; RENFE v. Spain, no. 35216/97, Commission decision of 8 September 1997, Decisions and Reports 90-B; and Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 47148/99

  The Court draws attention to its settled case-law, in accordance with which Article 8, while primarily intended to protect the individual against arbitrary interference on the part of the public authorities, may also entail the adoption by the latter of measures to secure the rights guaranteed by that Article even in the sphere of relations between individuals (see, among many other authorities, López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, pp. 54-55, § 51, and Surugiu v. Romania, no. 48995/99, § 59, 20 April 2004).

• EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 39483/05

  LISEYTSEVA AND MASLOV v. RUSSIA

  For instance, the Court has found that legal entities could be considered "governmental organisations" if they performed specific public duties under the supervision of the State authorities (see Novoseletskiy v. Ukraine, no. 47148/99, § 82, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)), or were public enterprises operating in various areas of State activity, including the mining, energy and transportation sectors (see Romashov v. Ukraine, no. 67534/01, §§ 46-47, 27 July 2004; Kucherenko v. Ukraine, no. 27347/02, § 25, 15 December 2005; Lisyanskiy, cited above, § 19; and Yershova, cited above, §§ 57-62).
• EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 46745/07

  SOURLAS v. GREECE

  The Court maintains on this point that, in the absence of any obligation for a judicial authority to give reasons for their decisions, the rights guaranteed by the Convention would be illusory and theoretical (see Novoseletskiy v. Ukraine, no. 47148/99, § 111, ECHR 2005 II (extracts), and Bistrovic, cited above, § 37).
• EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 13829/03

  BARRET ET SIRJEAN c. FRANCE

  Ils constatent que si, dans les affaires Lunari (précitée) et Novosseletsky c. Ukraine (no 47148/99, CEDH 2005-II), la Cour a constaté une violation de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1, il ne saurait en être autrement dans le cas d'espèce dès lors que les autorités n'ont même pas procédé à un début d'exécution.
• EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 10271/02

  R.P. c. FRANCE

  Il constate que si, dans les affaires Lunari (précitée) et Novosseletsky c. Ukraine (no 47148/99, CEDH 2005-II), la Cour a constaté une violation de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1, il ne saurait en être autrement dans le cas d'espèce dès lors que les autorités n'ont même pas procédé à un commencement d'exécution.