Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANTONENKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (length of proceedings) No violation of P4-2 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention ...

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 32190/96

  LUORDO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 14183/02

  The Court observes that it ruled on the compatibility with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of an obligation not to leave one's place of residence in a series of cases against Italy, including the case of Luordo (see Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, § 96, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 47778/99

  BASSANI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 14183/02

  This pattern was followed in subsequent cases, where the duration of an obligation not to leave one's place of residence varied from 13 years 6 months (see Goffi v. Italy, no. 55984/00, § 20, 24 March 2005) to 24 years 5 months (see Bassani v. Italy, no. 47778/99, § 24, 11 December 2003).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 55984/00

  GOFFI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 14183/02

  This pattern was followed in subsequent cases, where the duration of an obligation not to leave one's place of residence varied from 13 years 6 months (see Goffi v. Italy, no. 55984/00, § 20, 24 March 2005) to 24 years 5 months (see Bassani v. Italy, no. 47778/99, § 24, 11 December 2003).

 
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35825/97

  AL AKIDI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 14183/02

  However, where it concerns a continuing situation, it runs from the end of the situation concerned (see Al Akidi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35825/97, 19 September 2000).
• EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87

  RUIZ-MATEOS c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 14183/02

  The Court finds it doubtful that the two-thousand pages case-file could in itself justify the overall length of the trial (see, mutatis mutandis, Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A no. 262, p.p. 21 and 23, §§ 40 and 53).
• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

  FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 14183/02

  However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after 11 September 1997, when the Convention came into force in respect of Ukraine, account must also be taken of the state of proceedings at that stage (see, Foti and Others v. Italy judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, pp. 18-19, § 53).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 14183/02

  The Court, therefore, agrees with the applicants that the impugned measure restricted their right to liberty of movement in a manner amounting to an interference, within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (see Hannak v. Austria, no. 17208/90, Commission decision of 13 October 1993; Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. p. 19, § 39).

• EGMR, 12.03.2024 - 41738/19

  NASYROV v. LITHUANIA

  The Court sees no reason to question the domestic courts' finding that requiring the applicant to give an undertaking not to leave his place of residence in Lithuania and obliging him to surrender his Russian passport was compatible with domestic law - Articles 119 and 122 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraphs 5 in fine and 18 in fine above; see also, mutatis mutandis, Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, §§ 55-57, 22 November 2005).
• 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, 10.04.2012 - 37379/02

  POP BLAGA c. ROUMANIE

  Cependant, la Cour rappelle qu'une limitation de la liberté de circuler pour les besoins d'une procédure pénale en cours ne pose pas en soi de problème sur le terrain de l'article 2 du Protocole no 4, tant que cette mesure est prévue par la loi et reste proportionnée au but légitime poursuivi, notamment en ce qui concerne sa durée (mutatis mutandis, Fedorov et Fedorova c. Russie, no 31008/02, § 41, 13 octobre 2005 et Antonenkov et autres c. Ukraine, no 14183/02, § 61, 22 novembre 2005).

 
• EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 5187/07

  MOROZ v. UKRAINE

  The Court further reiterates that where no domestic remedy is available, the six-month period runs from the act alleged to constitute a violation of the Convention and where it concerns a continuing situation, it runs from the end of the situation concerned (see Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, § 32, 22 November 2005).
• EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 16528/05

  HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  On the other hand, in cases where this obligation was imposed for periods varying between four years and three months and four years and ten months, the Court, having also had regard to other specific circumstances of each case, did not find the restriction of the applicants" freedom of movement disproportionate (see Fedorov and Fedorova v. Russia, no. 31008/02, §§ 42-47, 13 October 2005, and Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, §§ 62-67, 22 November 2005).
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 14613/03

  NIKIFORENKO v. UKRAINE

  However, in the Antonenkov and Others case (see, Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, §§ 59-67, 22 November 2005), where the length of the impugned restriction within the course of criminal proceedings was four years and ten months, the Court found no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. Also, in the Fedorov and Fedorova case (see Fedorov and Fedorova v. Russia, cited above, §§ 32-47), where an obligation not to leave their place of residence was imposed on the applicants for four years and three months and four years and six months, the Court found that in the circumstances of the case the restriction on the applicants" freedom of movement was not disproportionate.
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 15007/02

  IVANOV v. UKRAINE

  However, in the Antonenkov and Others case (see, Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, §§ 59-67, 22 November 2005), where the length of the impugned restriction within the course of criminal proceedings was four years and ten months, the Court found no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. Also, in the Fedorov and Fedorova case (see, Fedorov and Fedorova v. Russia, cited above, §§ 32-47), where the obligation not to leave one's place of residence was imposed on the applicants during four years and three months and four years and six months, the Court found that in the circumstances of the case the restriction on the applicants' freedom of movement was not disproportionate.
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 12174/03

  DROZD v. UKRAINE

  The six-month period runs from the act alleged to constitute a violation of the Convention only where no effective domestic remedy is available (see, among other authorities, Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, § 32, 22 November 2005).
• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 39964/02

  KHAYLO v. UKRAINE

  As regards the Government's submission concerning the non-observance of the six-month rule, the Court notes that where no effective remedy is available, the six-month period runs from the act alleged to constitute a violation of the Convention (see e.g., Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, § 32, 22 November 2005).
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 26864/03

  VASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  It ends with the day on which a charge is finally determined or the proceedings are discontinued (see Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, § 81, 7 April 2005, and Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, §§ 32-33, 22 November 2005).
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 70786/01

  ROSENGREN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 20.11.2007 - 23664/03

  KOVALYOVA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 38572/03

  RODZINSKIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 74253/17

  MANANNIKOV v. RUSSIA