Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KURIC ET AUTRES c. SLOVÉNIE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+8, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée (Article 35-1 - Recours interne efficace Situation continue Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae Ratione temporis) Exception préliminaire rejetée (Article 34 - Victime) Violation de l'article 8 - Droit au respect de la vie privée et ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KURIC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+8, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy Continuing situation Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae Ratione temporis) Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim) Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KURIC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy;Continuing situation;Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae;Ratione temporis);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection allowed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Kuric and Others v. Slovenia

  [06.07.2011]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 26828/06
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 26828/06
• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 26828/06
• EGMR, 12.03.2014 - 26828/06
• EGMR, 25.05.2016 - 26828/06

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (31)

• EGMR, 28.04.2008 - 35014/97

  HUTTEN-CZAPSKA c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 26828/06

  The Chamber dismissed all these pleas, observing, in particular, that it could have regard to the facts which had occurred prior to ratification inasmuch as they could be considered to have created a continuous situation extending beyond that date or might have been relevant for the understanding of facts occurring after that date (see, in particular, Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, §§ 147-153, ECHR 2006-VIII).

  The Court considers that the present case is suitable for the adoption of a pilot-judgment procedure within the meaning of Rule 61 of the Rules of Court, given that one of the fundamental implications of this procedure is that the Court's assessment of the situation complained of in a "pilot" case necessarily extends beyond the sole interests of the individual applicants and requires it to examine that case also from the perspective of the general measures that need to be taken in the interest of other potentially affected persons (see Broniowski v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 31443/96, § 36, ECHR 2005-IX, and Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 35014/97, § 33, 28 April 2008).

• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

  SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 26828/06

  The Grand Chamber observes at the outset that the Government did not contest before it that the "erasure" and its repercussions had had an adverse effect on the applicants and amounted to an interference with their "private or family life" or both within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 96, ECHR 2003-X).

  In this case the Court unanimously found a clear violation of Article 8 of the Convention, considering that the "erasure" of the applicants amounted to an interference with their "private or family life" or both within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 96, ECHR 2003-X).

• EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79

  Inze ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 26828/06

  The scope of the margin of appreciation will vary according to the circumstances, the subject matter and its background (see Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 40, Series A no. 87, and Inze v. Austria, 28 October 1987, § 41, Series A no. 126), but the final decision as to observance of the Convention's requirements rests with the Court.

 
• EGMR, 18.10.2006 - 46410/99

  Rechtssache ÜNER gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 26828/06

  According to the Court's case-law, the Convention does not guarantee the right of an alien to enter or to reside in a particular country and Contracting States have the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see, among many other authorities, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 73, Reports 1996-V; El Boujaïdi v. France, 26 September 1997, § 39, Reports 1997-VI; Baghli v. France, no. 34374/97, § 45, ECHR 1999-VIII; Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, § 39, ECHR 2001-IX; Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 54, ECHR 2006-XII; and Slivenko, cited above, § 115).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 26828/06

  In the applicants" view, the issue of discriminatory treatment of the "erased" was one of the main features of the present case, and the Grand Chamber should examine the merits of their complaint under Article 14 (they cited Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III, and Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 12.09.2002 - 50029/99

  MIKHEYEVA contre la LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 26828/06

  Although it followed from the earlier case-law and also some later decisions that an applicant could cease to be a "victim" if a remedy was provided in the course of the proceedings (they cited, inter alia, Maaouia v. France (dec.), no. 39652/98, ECHR 1999-II; Pancenko v. Latvia (dec.), no. 40772/98, 28 October 1999; and Mikheyeva v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50029/99, 12 September 2002), the recent case-law under Article 8 of the Convention clearly indicated that the recognition of a violation was not sufficient in this respect; "adequate" redress, including the reparation of adverse consequences suffered by the applicants over a long period of time, was also required (they cited Aristimuño Mendizabal, cited above, § 79; Mengesha Kimfe v. Switzerland, no. 24404/05, §§ 41-49, 29 July 2010; and Agraw v. Switzerland, no. 3295/06, §§ 27-34, 29 July 2010).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 26828/06

  Indeed, in certain circumstances a failure to attempt to correct inequality through different treatment may, without an objective and reasonable justification, give rise to a breach of that Article (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV, and Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95

  Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 26828/06

  The "erasure" irremediably affected their private or family life or both under Article 8 of the Convention, which also protected the right to establish details of a person's identity as an individual human being (the applicants cited, inter alia, Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 90, ECHR 2002-VI, and Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 53, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

  RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 26828/06

  The scope of the margin of appreciation will vary according to the circumstances, the subject matter and its background (see Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 40, Series A no. 87, and Inze v. Austria, 28 October 1987, § 41, Series A no. 126), but the final decision as to observance of the Convention's requirements rests with the Court.
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 26828/06

  The applicants contended that the Government's position that they should first file their compensation claims before the domestic courts or the State Attorney's Office had no merit (they cited Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), 13 June 1994, § 17, Series A no. 285-C).
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 30.11.1999 - 34374/97

  BAGHLI v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 24404/05

  MENGESHA KIMFE c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 40772/98

  PANCENKO v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 24404/05

  MENGESHA KIMFE ET 2 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA SUISSE
• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  P.G. AND J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 53470/99

  MEHEMI c. FRANCE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

  MIKULIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

  Verschleppter Prozess - Mann prozessiert seit 16 Jahren um Entschädigung nach …
• EGMR, 14.10.1999 - 37680/97

  RIERA BLUME AND OTHERS v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 02.08.2001 - 54273/00

  BOULTIF v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 45133/98

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 21.06.2018 - C-391/16

  Nach Auffassung von Generalanwalt Wathelet sind die Bestimmungen der Richtlinie …

  Maßnahmen, die das Aufenthaltsrecht eines Ausländers einschränken, können jedoch in bestimmten Fällen gegen Art. 8 EMRK verstoßen, wenn sich daraus unverhältnismäßige Auswirkungen auf dessen Privat- und/oder Familienleben ergeben (vgl. u. a. Urteil vom 26. Juni 2012, Kuric u. a./Slowenien, CE:ECHR:2012:0626JUD002682806, Nr. 355 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 1653/13

  Spanien verurteilt: ETA-Terroristen unmenschlich behandelt

  Elle a de plus admis que la règle de l'épuisement des voies de recours internes ne s'accommode pas d'une application automatique et ne revêt pas un caractère absolu ; en contrôlant le respect, il faut avoir égard aux circonstances de la cause (Saleck Bardi c. Espagne, no 66167/09, §§ 36-37, 24 mai 2011, et Kuric et autres c. Slovénie [GC], no 26828/06, § 286, CEDH 2012 (extraits)).
• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 22612/15

  CHARRON ET MERLE-MONTET c. FRANCE

  Elle a de plus admis que la règle de l'épuisement des voies de recours internes ne s'accommode pas d'une application automatique et ne revêt pas un caractère absolu; en en contrôlant le respect, il faut avoir égard aux circonstances de la cause (Akdivar et autres, précité, § 69, et Kuric et autres c. Slovénie [GC], no 26828/06, § 286, 26 juin 2012).

 
• EGMR, 05.05.2020 - 84536/17

  GRANER c. FRANCE

  Elle a de plus admis que la règle de l'épuisement des voies de recours internes ne s'accommode pas d'une application automatique et ne revêt pas un caractère absolu; en en contrôlant le respect, il faut avoir égard aux circonstances de la cause (Akdivar et autres, précité, § 69, et Kuric et autres c. Slovénie [GC], no 26828/06, § 286, 26 juin 2012).
• EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 55760/11

  KAPMAZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Elle a de plus admis que la règle de l'épuisement des voies de recours internes ne s'accommode pas d'une application automatique et ne revêt pas un caractère absolu ; en en contrôlant le respect, il faut avoir égard aux circonstances de la cause (Akdivar et autres, précité, § 69, et Kuric et autres c. Slovénie [GC], no 26828/06, § 286, CEDH 2012 (extraits)).
• EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 13716/12

  KAPMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Elle a de plus admis que la règle de l'épuisement des voies de recours internes ne s'accommode pas d'une application automatique et ne revêt pas un caractère absolu ; en en contrôlant le respect, il faut avoir égard aux circonstances de la cause (Akdivar et autres, précité, § 69, et Kuric et autres c. Slovénie [GC], no 26828/06, § 286, CEDH 2012 (extraits)).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 40591/11

  N.Ç. c. TURQUIE

  Elle a de plus admis que la règle de l'épuisement des voies de recours internes ne s'accommode pas d'une application automatique et ne revêt pas un caractère absolu ; en en contrôlant le respect, il faut avoir égard aux circonstances de la cause (Kuric et autres c. Slovénie [GC], no 26828/06, § 286, 26 juin 2012).
• EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 33799/16

  ALVAREZ JUAN c. ESPAGNE

  La Cour a de plus admis que la règle de l'épuisement des voies de recours internes ne s'accommode pas d'une application automatique et ne revêt pas un caractère absolu ; en en contrôlant le respect, il faut avoir égard aux circonstances de la cause (Kuric et autres c. Slovénie [GC], no 26828/06, § 286, CEDH 2012 (extraits), et Gherghina c. Roumanie (déc.) [GC], précitée, § 87).