Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2017,3579
EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09 (https://dejure.org/2017,3579)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.02.2017 - 43395/09 (https://dejure.org/2017,3579)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. Februar 2017 - 43395/09 (https://dejure.org/2017,3579)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,3579) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DE TOMMASO v. ITALY

    Remainder inadmissible;Struck out of the list (Article 37-1-c - Continued examination not justified);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-general (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement);Violation of Article 6 - Right ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DE TOMMASO c. ITALIE

    Partiellement irrecevable;Radiation du rôle (Article 37-1-c - Poursuite de l'examen non justifiée);Violation de l'article 2 du Protocole n° 4 - Liberté de circulation-général (article 2 al. 1 du Protocole n° 4 - Liberté de circulation);Violation de l'article 6 ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DE TOMMASO v. ITALY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

    [DEU] Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-general (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil ...

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges (2)

Papierfundstellen

  • NVwZ-RR 2018, 651
 
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 ... (35)

  • EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

    GOLUB v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

    In order to determine whether someone has been "deprived of his liberty" within the meaning of Article 5, the starting point must be his concrete situation and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, §§ 58-59, Series A no. 22; Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 92, Series A no. 39; and Riera Blume and Others v. Spain, no. 37680/97, § 28, ECHR 1999-VII; De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 80, 23 February 2017).
  • EGMR, 21.11.2019 - 47287/15

    Transitzonen grundsätzlich erlaubt

    The difference between deprivation and restriction of liberty is one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 80, 23 February 2017, with the references therein; see also Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, § 36, 11 October 2016).
  • EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 17895/14

    EVERS v. GERMANY

    While the holding of a public hearing constitutes a fundamental principle enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the obligation to hold such a hearing is not absolute (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 163, 23 February 2017 and Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, §§ 41-42, ECHR 2006-XIV).
  • EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 55674/10

    ACHILOV AND IVANOV v. RUSSIA

    Noting the admissions contained in the declaration and the amount of compensation proposed - which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases - the Court considers that it is appropriate to strike out the complaints mentioned above (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 76, ECHR 2003-VI, and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 134, 23 February 2017).
  • EGMR, 31.01.2019 - 50064/11

    NEMCHINOV c. RUSSIE

    Dans l'affirmative, cette restriction était-elle prévue par la loi et nécessaire, au sens de l'article 2 § 3 du Protocole no 4 à la Convention (De Tommaso c. Italie [GC], no 43395/09, §§ 106-126, CEDH 2017 (extraits), et Labita c. Italie [GC], no 26772/95, §§ 189-197, CEDH 2000-IV) ?.

    L'article 6 § 1 de la Convention, dans sa branche civile (voir, mutatis mutandis, De Tommaso c. Italie [GC], no 43395/09, §§ 143-155, CEDH 2017 (extraits)) ou pénale (voir, mutatis mutandis, Phillips c. Royaume-Uni, no 41087/98, §§ 37-39, CEDH 2001-VII, ), était-il applicable à la procédure relative au prononcé de mesures de surveillance administrative à l'égard du requérant qui s'est soldée par la décision de la cour régionale de Vladimir du 14 mars 2014 ?.

  • EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 34367/14

    BELKACEM c. BELGIQUE

    Il incombe en premier lieu aux autorités nationales, notamment aux tribunaux, d'interpréter et d'appliquer le droit interne (De Tommaso c. Italie [GC], no 43395/09, § 108, CEDH 2017 (extraits)).
  • EGMR, 21.11.2019 - 61411/15

    Gestrandete Flüchtlingen am Moskauer Flughafen: Gefangen in der Transitzone?

    The difference between deprivation and restriction of liberty is one of degree or intensity and not one of nature or substance (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 80, 23 February 2017, with further references; see also Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, § 36, 11 October 2016).
  • EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07

    BILGEN v. TURKEY

    These examples include disciplinary proceedings concerning the right to practise a profession (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, §§ 47 and 48, Series A no. 43, and Philis v. Greece (no. 2), 27 June 1997, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV), disputes involving the right to a healthy environment (see Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 133, ECHR 2004-X), prisoners" detention arrangements (see Ganci v. Italy, no. 41576/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-XI, and Enea v. Italy (cited above, § 103) as well as the right of a prisoner to confidential face-to-face conversation with a lawyer outside the context of a criminal trial (see Altay v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 11236/09, § 68, 9 April 2019), the right of access to investigation documents (see Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, §§ 143-45, 26 July 2012), disputes regarding the non-inclusion of a conviction in a criminal record (see Alexandre v. Portugal, no. 33197/09, §§ 54 and 55, 20 November 2012), proceedings for the application of a non-custodial preventive measure (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 154, ECHR 2017 (extracts)), the revocation of a civil servant's security clearance within the Ministry of Defence (see Regner, cited above, §§ 113-27).
  • EGMR, 10.07.2020 - 310/15

    MUGEMANGANGO c. BELGIQUE

    They were neither accessible nor foreseeable in their application (see, among other authorities, as regards the requirements on quality of the law, which are common to the entire Convention, De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, §§ 106-09, 23 February 2017).
  • EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 76521/12

    EMINAGAOGLU c. TURQUIE

    These examples include disciplinary proceedings concerning the right to practise a profession (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, §§ 47 and 48, Series A no. 43, and Philis v. Greece (no. 2), 27 June 1997, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV), disputes involving the right to a healthy environment (see Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 133, ECHR 2004-X), prisoners" detention arrangements (see Ganci v. Italy, no. 41576/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-XI, and Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 103, ECHR 2009), the right of access to investigation documents (see Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, §§ 143-45, 26 July 2012), disputes regarding the non-inclusion of a conviction in a criminal record (see Alexandre v. Portugal, no. 33197/09, §§ 54 and 55, 20 November 2012), proceedings for the application of a non-custodial preventive measure (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 154, ECHR 2017 (extracts)), and the revocation of a civil servant's security clearance within the Ministry of Defence (see Regner, cited above, §§ 113-27).
  • EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 22479/05

    AVYIDI c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 39731/12

    WOLLAND v. NORWAY

  • EGMR - 57185/17 (anhängig)

    O.H. AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  • EGMR, 28.04.2020 - 36077/14

    BEVC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 12.11.2019 - 40797/17

    SAAR v. ESTONIA

  • EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 44689/16

    MAROUGGAS v. GREECE

  • EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28766/06

    KIPS DOO AND DREKALOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  • EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 57818/10

    TIBET MENTES AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 39783/15

    BORG v. MALTA

  • EGMR - 38321/17 (anhängig)

    MASLÁK v. SLOVAKIA and 8 other applications

  • EGMR - 31208/13 (anhängig)

    MORAIS c. PORTUGAL

  • EGMR - 11643/20 (anhängig)

    ISPIRYAN v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 1009/12

    STOYAN KRASTEV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 40554/04

    VEVECKA v. ALBANIA

  • EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 999/19

    AFTANACHE v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 29405/16

    CONSTANTINOVICI v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 44489/15

    DOBRILA AND VODISLAV v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 14.02.2019 - 63725/16

    NWAOGARAKU c. LUXEMBOURG

  • EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 50157/06

    MANGÎR AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 10222/11

    RIZZOTTO c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 74441/14

    BOTNARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 11551/13

    POLTORATSKYY v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6739/11

    BOKHONKO v. GEORGIA

  • EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 33809/16

    BADOIU v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 80237/13

    HARVEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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