Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KALANYOS AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c MRK
  Struck out of the list (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.12.2003 - 57884/00
• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57884/00
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57884/00
• EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 57884/00

Wird zitiert von ... (37)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57884/00

  41138/98 and 64320/01, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts)), one single judgment of this nature could not suffice, bearing in mind the complexity of the matters at hand.

  41138/98 and 64320/01, § 39, 5 July 2005) could not yet be assessed, as the execution of those judgments had just started under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers and was therefore still pending.

• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 53487/99

  MERIAKRI v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57884/00

  The Court will have to examine carefully the qualified declaration made by the Government in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (as cited above, §§ 75-77); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006) and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 25149/03

  Rechtssache V. H. gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57884/00

  The Court will have to examine carefully the qualified declaration made by the Government in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (as cited above, §§ 75-77); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006) and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX).

• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 58364/00

  Rechtssache L. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Juli 2004, Kalanyos und andere ./. Rumänien Nr. 57884/00, Rdnr. 25, 26.
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 44655/09

  KARAL c. TURQUIE

  A cette fin, la Cour doit examiner de près la déclaration à la lumière des principes que consacre sa jurisprudence, en particulier l'arrêt Tahsin Acar (Tahsin Acar c. Turquie (question préliminaire) [GC], no 26307/95, §§ 75-77, CEDH 2003-VI ; Van Houten c. Pays-Bas (radiation), no 25149/03, § 33, CEDH 2005-IX ; Syndicat suédois des employés des transports c. Suède (radiation), no 53507/99, § 24, 18 juillet 2006 ; Kalanyos et autres c. Roumanie, no 57884/00, § 25, 26 avril 2007 ; WAZA Spólka z o.o. c. Pologne (déc.) no 11602/02, 26 juin 2007 ; Stark et autres c. Finlande (radiation), no 39559/02, § 23, 9 octobre 2007 ; et Luís Manuel Valente Silva Marrafa c. Portugal (déc.), no 56936/08, 25 mai 2010).
• EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 39559/02

  STARK AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  In deciding whether or not it should strike the present case out of its list, the Court will examine carefully the terms of the declaration made by the Government in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular its judgments in cases such as Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC] (no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006); Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX) and Kalanyos and Others v. Romania ((no. 57884/00, § 25, 26 April 2007)).

 
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 20315/10

  BARIS INAN c. TURQUIE

  A cette fin, la Cour doit examiner de près la déclaration à la lumière des principes que consacre sa jurisprudence, en particulier l'arrêt Tahsin Acar (Tahsin Acar c. Turquie (question préliminaire) [GC], no 26307/95, §§ 75-77, CEDH 2003-VI ; Van Houten c. Pays-Bas (radiation), no 25149/03, § 33, CEDH 2005-IX ; Syndicat suédois des employés des transports c. Suède (radiation), no 53507/99, § 24, 18 juillet 2006 ; Kalanyos et autres c. Roumanie, no 57884/00, § 25, 26 avril 2007 ; WAZA Spólka zo.o. c. Pologne (déc.) no 11602/02, 26 juin 2007 ; Stark et autres c. Finlande (radiation), no 39559/02, § 23, 9 octobre 2007 ; Gloria-Nouvella Wachmann-Gugui c. Roumanie (déc.), no 37161/06, 11 mai 2010 ; et Ä°lyas Karal c. Turquie (déc.), no 44655/09, 29 mars 2011).
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 7779/04

  K.K. v. FINLAND

  In deciding whether or not it should strike the present case out of its list, the Court will examine carefully the terms of the declaration made by the Government in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular its judgments in cases such as Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC] (no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006); Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX) and Kalanyos and Others v. Romania ((no. 57884/00, § 25, 26 April 2007)).
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37520/07

  NISKASAARI AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  In deciding whether or not it should strike the length of proceedings complaint out of its list, the Court will examine the terms of the declaration made by the Government in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular its judgments in cases such as Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC] (no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006); Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX), Kalanyos and Others v. Romania ((no. 57884/00, § 25, 26 April 2007)), and K.K. v. Finland ((striking out), no. 7779/04, 27 November 2007).
• EGMR, 13.05.2008 - 10583/02

  J. R. F gegen Deutschland

  Juli 2006, Kalanyos und andere ./. Rumänien , Nr. 57884/00, Rdnr. 25, 26.
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 39420/08

  TILKI v. TURKEY

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, § 33, ECHR 2005-IX; Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden (striking out), no. 53507/99, § 24, 18 July 2006; Kalanyos and Others v. Romania, no. 57884/00, § 25, 26 April 2007; WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007; Stark and Others v. Finland (striking out), no. 39559/02, § 23, 9 October 2007; Silva Marrafa v Portugal (dec.) no. 56936/08, 25 May 2010; and Karal c. Turquie (dec.) no. 44655/09, 29 March 2011).
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 547/02

  JERONOVICS c. LETTONIE

  Ce sont toujours les circonstances particulières de la cause qui permettent de déterminer si la déclaration unilatérale offre une base suffisante pour que la Cour conclue que le respect des droits de l'homme garantis par la Convention n'exige pas qu'elle poursuive l'examen de l'affaire (voir Tahsin Acar, précité, § 75, ainsi que, par exemple, Van Houten c. Pays-Bas (radiation), no 25149/03, § 33, CEDH 2005-IX, Syndicat suédois des employés des transports c. Suède (radiation), no 53507/99, § 24, 18 juillet 2006, Kalanyos et autres c. Roumanie, no 57884/00, § 25, 26 avril 2007, Kladivík et Kasiar c. Slovaquie (déc.) (radiation), no 41484/04, 28 août 2007, Sulwinska c. Pologne (déc.) (radiation), no 28953/03, 18 septembre 2007, Stark et autres c. Finlande (radiation), no 39559/02, § 23, 9 octobre 2007 ; Feldhaus c. Allemagne (déc.) (radiation), no 10583/02, 13 mai 2008 et Kapitonovs c. Lettonie (déc.) (radiation), no 16999/02, 24 juin 2008).
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 10391/06

  NEVALA v. FINLAND

  In deciding whether or not it should strike the length of proceedings complaint out of its list, the Court will examine carefully the terms of the declaration made by the Government in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular its judgments in cases such as Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC] (no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006); Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX), Kalanyos and Others v. Romania ((no. 57884/00, § 25, 26 April 2007)), and K.K. v. Finland ((striking out), no. 7779/04, 27 November 2007).
• EGMR, 06.01.2009 - 20532/05

  VIINIKANOJA v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 8101/08

  ERDE ENDUSTRIYEL INS. MUH. SAN. TIC. LTD. STI. c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 14772/08

  OZTURK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 48311/08

  FARIA BARBOSA c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 07.09.2010 - 47182/09

  AUTO-NESTOR OY AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 25.05.2010 - 56936/08

  SILVA MARRAFA c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 12490/06

  ACKERMANN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 16718/06

  MEDDOURI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 59555/08

  LEHTONEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 37484/07

  MOLANDER v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 23996/06

  LIEBKIND v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 17561/06

  WARGNY c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 32681/06

  MANNER v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 7663/07

  BRAND c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 24370/06

  KERAVIS c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 10794/02

  HAMMELIN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 19548/09

  BARROS LUIS c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 55613/08

  YLLOUZ c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 37377/06

  MARC-ANTOINE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 7644/04

  CIUL c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 23682/07

  OINAALA v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 13425/04

  BABES v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 652/08

  TANER YILMAZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13224/05

  LIUKSILA v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 30159/03

  LAZAR c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 30374/06

  SA c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 37233/07

  JOKINEN v. FINLAND