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 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)

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • NVwZ-RR 2018, 651



Kontextvorschau:





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (25)  

  • EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28766/06  

    KIPS DOO AND DREKALOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

    As regards the applicants" complaint under Article 13 about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard, the Court reiterates that the relevant Article has been consistently interpreted by the Court as requiring a remedy in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, for example, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 31, Series A no. 172, and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 180 in limine, 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, 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, 05.06.2018 - 74441/14  

    BOTNARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

    Therefore, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they conform to their obligations under this provision, there must be a domestic remedy allowing the competent national authority both to deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 179, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
  • 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 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, 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, 26.06.2018 - 50488/13  

    CANNIZZO c. ITALIE

    Eu égard à la nature des concessions que renferme la déclaration du Gouvernement, ainsi qu'au montant de l'indemnisation proposée - qui est conforme au montant alloué dans une affaire similaire (De Tommaso c. Italie [GC], no 43395/09, CEDH 2017 (extraits)), la Cour estime qu'il ne se justifie plus de poursuivre l'examen de la requête (article 37 § 1 c).
  • EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 50157/06  

    MANGÎR AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15  

    ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  • EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 39731/12  

    WOLLAND v. NORWAY

  • EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 57818/10  

    TIBET MENTES AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 21272/12  

    BECKER v. NORWAY

  • EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 32303/13  

    MIROVNI INSTITUT v. SLOVENIA

  • EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 147/07  

    KAMENOS v. CYPRUS

  • EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 59040/08  

    OKTAR c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 13476/05  

    OKAN GÜVEN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 19258/07  

    DÖNMEZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 48818/17  

    CUMHURIYET HALK PARTISI v. TURKEY

  • EGMR - 63725/16 (anhängig)  

    NWAOGARAKU c. LUXEMBOURG

  • EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 39783/15  

    BORG v. MALTA

  • EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 80237/13  

    HARVEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 45046/16  

    P.H. v. IRELAND

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?

Ablegen in

Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 Alle auswählen Alle auswählen


 


Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht