Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- 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 to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Civil rights and obligations;Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Civil rights and obligations;Fair hearing);No violation of Article 13+P4-2-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-general;Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)
- 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 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure civile;Article 6-1 - Droits et obligations de caractère civil;Procès équitable);Non-violation de l'article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure civile;Article 6-1 - Droits et obligations de caractère civil;Procès équitable);Non-violation de l'article 13+P4-2-1 - Droit à un recours effectif (Article 13 - Recours effectif) (article 2 du Protocole n° 4 - Liberté de circulation-général;article 2 al. 1 du Protocole n° 4 - Liberté de circulation);Dommage matériel - demande rejetée (Article 41 - Dommage matériel;Satisfaction équitable);Préjudice moral - réparation (Article 41 - Préjudice moral;Satisfaction équitable) (französisch)
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
- EGMR - 43395/09 (anhängig)
Wird zitiert von ... (15)
- EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 48151/11
FÉDÉRATION NATIONALE DES ASSOCIATIONS ET SYNDICATS SPORTIFS (FNASS) ET AUTRES c. …
Elle rappelle également, comme le fait le Gouvernement, que des mesures spéciales de surveillance avec assignation à résidence constituent en principe des restrictions à la liberté de circulation examinées sous l'angle de l'article 2 du Protocole no 4 (De Tommaso c. Italie [GC], no 43395/09, §§ 83 et suivants, CEDH 2017 (extraits)). - EGMR - 50064/11 (anhängig)
NEMCHINOV c. RUSSIE et 6 autres affaires
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, 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, 17.05.2018 - 39731/12
WOLLAND v. NORWAY
It does not compel States to allow individuals to challenge domestic laws before a national authority on the grounds of being contrary to the Convention, but seeks only to ensure that anyone who makes an arguable complaint of a violation of a Convention right will have an effective remedy in the domestic legal order (see, for example, De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 180, ECHR 2017 (extracts)). - EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 32303/13
MIROVNI INSTITUT v. SLOVENIA
In this connection, it is to be recalled that there has been a shift in Court's case-law towards applying the civil limb of Article 6 to cases which might not initially appear to concern a civil right but which may have direct and significant repercussions on a private right belonging to an individual (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 151, ECHR 2017 (extracts)). - EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 41226/09
Türkei verurteilt: Nicht jeder ist ein Terrorist
The Court reiterates its settled case-law, according to which the expressions "in accordance with law" and "prescribed by law" not only require that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also refer to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the persons concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 106, 23 February 2017 and the cases cited therein; Medzlis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 17224/11, § 68, 27 June 2017; and Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 142, ECHR 2017 (extracts)). - EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 36249/14
LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA
To take the most recent example, five judges expressed the opinion that "promptness and special diligence" are required in (at least certain) situations falling under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (see the joint concurring opinion of Judges Raimondi, Villiger, Sikuta, Keller and Kjølbro in De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, 23 February 2017). - EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15
ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)
While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, § 46, Series A no. 140; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 94, ECHR 2006-IX; and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 170, ECHR 2017 (extracts)). - EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 57818/10
TIBET MENTES AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
In sum, the complaint brought by the applicants under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is of a "fourth-instance" nature, and it is not for the Court to deal with such a complaint (see, among other authorities, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 90, ECHR 2016 (extracts), and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 170, ECHR 2017 (extracts)). - EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 147/07
KAMENOS v. CYPRUS
The starting point for the assessment of the applicability of the civil aspect of Article 6 of the Convention is the existence of a genuine and serious dispute over a "right" which the applicant could claim on arguable grounds under domestic law (see, most recently, De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 144, 23 February 2017, with further references, as well as Baka, §§ 107-111, cited above). - EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 13476/05
OKAN GÜVEN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 21272/12
BECKER v. NORWAY
- EGMR - 63725/16 (anhängig)
NWAOGARAKU c. LUXEMBOURG
- EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 48818/17
CUMHURIYET HALK PARTISI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 39783/15
BORG v. MALTA