Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09 |
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)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[FRE]
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
De Tommaso v. Italy
[20.05.2015]
Papierfundstellen
- NVwZ-RR 2018, 651
Wird zitiert von ... (50)
- 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, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11
DENISOV v. UKRAINE
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 Ta?Ÿkin 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, 28.05.2020 - 17895/14
EVERS v. GERMANY
Auch wenn die öffentliche Verhandlung einen in Artikel 6 Abs. 1 der Konvention verankerten Grundsatz darstellt, ist die Pflicht eine solche durchzuführen nicht absolut (siehe De Tommaso ./. Italien [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 43395/09, Rdnr. 163, 23. Februar 2017 und Jussila ./. Finnland [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 73053/01, Rdnrn. 41-42, ECHR 2006-XIV).
- 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, 14.09.2017 - 56665/09
KÁROLY NAGY c. HONGRIE
As recently reiterated by the Grand Chamber, "Article 13 requires that a remedy be available in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, for example, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 54, Series A no. 131)" (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 180, ECHR 2017). - EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20
JUSZCZYSZYN v. POLAND
The phrase thus implies, inter alia, that domestic law must be sufficiently foreseeable in its terms to give individuals an adequate indication as to the circumstances in which, and the conditions on which, the authorities are entitled to resort to measures affecting their rights under the Convention (see Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 117, ECHR 2014 (extracts) with further references, and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, §§ 106-109, 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, 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, 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, 15.09.2022 - 24867/13
M.K. v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07
BILGEN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 60785/19
MØRCK JENSEN v. DENMARK
- EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15
ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)
- EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 41226/09
Türkei verurteilt: Nicht jeder ist ein Terrorist
- EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 61019/19
GARRIDO HERRERO v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 32303/13
MIROVNI INSTITUT v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 76521/12
EMINAGAOGLU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 22479/05
AVYIDI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 19120/15
SERAZIN v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10
IMRET v. TURKEY (No. 2)
- EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 39731/12
WOLLAND v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 48818/17
CUMHURIYET HALK PARTISI v. TURKEY
- EGMR - 57185/17 (anhängig)
O.H. AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17
MASLÁK v. SLOVAKIA (No.2)
- EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12
GOLUB v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 55674/10
ACHILOV AND IVANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.04.2020 - 36077/14
BEVC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 12.11.2019 - 40797/17
SAAR v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13
MURSALIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 6970/15
ZHANG v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 44689/16
MAROUGGAS v. GREECE
- EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 50157/06
MANGÎR AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 46713/10
BAKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- 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 - 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, 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, 26.04.2022 - 31208/13
MORAIS c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 80237/13
HARVEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM