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)
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
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, 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 - 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, 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, 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, 13.11.2018 - 6970/15
ZHANG v. UKRAINE
The Court reiterates that 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 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, 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
- EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15
ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)
- EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 74441/14
BOTNARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 32303/13
MIROVNI INSTITUT v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 147/07
KAMENOS v. CYPRUS
- EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 57818/10
TIBET MENTES AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 59040/08
OKTAR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 13476/05
OKAN GÜVEN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- 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, 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 - 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
- EGMR - 31208/13 (anhängig)
MORAIS c. PORTUGAL
- 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