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 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)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DE TOMMASO v. ITALY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] summary by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (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 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 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement;Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-general);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

• 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 ... (30)  

• EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 48151/11

  NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SPORTSPERSONS" ASSOCIATIONS AND UNIONS (FNASS) AND OTHERS …

  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, 09.10.2018 - 19120/15

  SERAZIN v. CROATIA

  In the Court's case-law, in various other contexts, the absence of a predominantly punitive and deterrent purpose of a measure, which are the elements customarily recognised as the two aspects of a penalty (see Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, § 102, ECHR 2003-X; Sergey Zolotukhin, cited above, § 55; and Mihai Toma v. Romania, no. 1051/06, § 21, 24 January 2012, with further references), and the emphasis on its preventive nature was one of the main indications that the application of the measure in question did not involve the determination of a "criminal charge" within the autonomous meaning of the Convention (see, for instance, Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 281-A, and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 143, ECHR 2017 (extracts), concerning the special supervision of those belonging to "mafia-type" groups; Escoubet, cited above, §§ 36-37, and Becker, cited above, § 27, concerning the withdrawal of a driving licence; R v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 33506/05, 4 January 2007, concerning the application of the warning scheme for sex offenders; and Palmén v. Sweden (dec.), no. 38292/15, § 26, 22 March 2016, concerning the revocation of a weapons licence).
• EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 56665/09

  KÁROLY NAGY v. HUNGARY

  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, 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??kin 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, 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, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13

  MURSALIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court agrees with the applicants that those measures amounted to an interference with their right to leave their own country within the meaning of Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4. It must therefore be examined whether the interference was "in accordance with law", pursued one or more of the legitimate aims set out in Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4 and whether it was "necessary in a democratic society" to achieve such an aim (see Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, § 61, 10 February 2011; Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, § 30, ECHR 2012; Kerimli v. Azerbaijan, no. 3967/09, § 45, 16 July 2015; and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 105, 23 February 2017).
• EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 21272/12

  BECKER v. NORWAY

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that it is primarily for the national authorities to interpret and apply domestic law (see, as a recent example, De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 108, 23 February 2017).
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10

  IMRET v. TURKEY (No. 2)

  The Court reiterates its settled case-law, according to which the expressions "in accordance with the 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], no. 17224/11, § 68, 27 June 2017; and Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 142, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 46713/10

  BAKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates its settled case-law, according to which the expressions "in accordance with the 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], no. 17224/11, § 68, ECHR 2017; and Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 142, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15

  ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)
• EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 147/07

  KAMENOS v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 6970/15

  ZHANG v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 74441/14

  BOTNARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 32303/13

  MIROVNI INSTITUT v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 57818/10

  TIBET MENTES AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR - 38321/17 (anhängig)

  MASLÁK v. SLOVAKIA and 8 other applications
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 59040/08

  OKTAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 13476/05

  OKAN GÜVEN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 50157/06

  MANGÎR AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28766/06

  KIPS DOO AND DREKALOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 39731/12

  WOLLAND v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 19258/07

  DÖNMEZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 44689/16

  MAROUGGAS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 48818/17

  CUMHURIYET HALK PARTISI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 39783/15

  BORG v. MALTA
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 50488/13

  CANNIZZO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 80237/13

  HARVEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 45046/16

  P.H. v. IRELAND
• EGMR - 31208/13 (anhängig)

  MORAIS c. PORTUGAL