Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35082/04 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MAKHMUDOV v. RUSSIA
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 11 MRK
Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-5 Violation of Art. 11 (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (12) Neu Zitiert selbst (11)
- EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02
FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35082/04
The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 5 is complied with where it is possible to apply for compensation in respect of a deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4. The right to compensation set forth in paragraph 5 therefore presupposes that a violation of one of the preceding paragraphs of Article 5 has been established, either by a domestic authority or by the Court (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 83, 25 October 2005, and N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 49, ECHR 2002-X). - EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00
TIMISHEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35082/04
55762/00 and 55974/00, § 56, ECHR 2005-XII). - EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 17582/05
ARTYOMOV c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35082/04
The Court reiterates that discrimination on account of one's ethnic origin or religion is a form of racial discrimination, which is a particularly invidious kind of discrimination and, in view of its perilous consequences, requires from the authorities special vigilance and a vigorous reaction (see Igor Artyomov v. Russia (dec.), no. 17582/05, 7 December 2006, and Timishev v. Russia, nos.
- EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79
Inze ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35082/04
However, Article 14 has no independent existence, since it has effect solely in relation to the rights and freedoms safeguarded by those provisions (see Inze v. Austria, judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, § 36). - EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65
RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35082/04
The Court reiterates that the last stage of domestic remedies may be reached shortly after the lodging of the application, but before the Court is called upon to pronounce on admissibility (see SaÄ?at, Bayram and Berk v. Turkey (dec.), no. 8036/02, 6 March 2007, and Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, § 91). - EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94
Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35082/04
It considers that this period can be regarded as "prompt" for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 51, ECHR 1999-III). - EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35082/04
As regards the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy invoked was "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR 2000-XI). - EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97
ADALI v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35082/04
In view of the essential nature of freedom of assembly and its close relationship with democracy there must be convincing and compelling reasons to justify an interference with this right (see Ouranio Toxo v. Greece, no. 74989/01, § 36, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), and Adalı v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, § 267, 31 March 2005, with further references). - EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00
FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35082/04
The failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's claims (see, among other authorities, Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 79, ECHR 2005-IV, and Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004). - EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 28793/02
CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S PARTY v. MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35082/04
By virtue of the wording of the second paragraph of Article 11, the only necessity capable of justifying an interference with the rights enshrined in that Article is one that may claim to spring from "democratic society" (see Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, §§ 62-63, ECHR 2006-..., and Djavit An, cited above, § 56). - EKMR, 16.07.1980 - 8440/78
CHRISTIAN AGAINST FASCISM AND RACISM v. the UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12
Ungarn verstößt gegen Menschenrechtskonvention
Although these principles have mainly been applied in the context of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see Aktas v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, § 79, ECHR 2003-V (extracts), and El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 151-152, ECHR 2012), the Court observes that there are examples in which they have been applied in respect of other Convention rights (Article 5 in Creanga v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, §§ 88-90, 23 February 2012; Article 8 in Fadeyeva, cited above; Article 11 in Makhmudov v. Russia, no. 35082/04, §§ 68-73, 26 July 2007; and Article 14 in D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, §§ 177-179, ECHR 2007-IV). - EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 26587/07
KRUPKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
It follows from the above that the applicants" arrest could not have been effected "for the purpose of bringing [them] before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) (compare with Makhmudov v. Russia, no. 35082/04, §§ 82-85, 26 July 2007). - EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 8029/07
GÜN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
La Cour se réfère d'abord aux principes fondamentaux qui se dégagent de sa jurisprudence relative à l'article 11 (Plattform « Ärzte für das Leben'c. Autriche, 21 juin 1988, § 32, série A no 139 ; Djavit An c. Turquie, no 20652/92, §§ 56-57, CEDH 2003-III, Piermont c. France, 27 avril 1995, §§ 76-77, série A no 314 ; Stankov et Organisation macédonienne unie Ilinden, précité, §§ 77-78 et 97, Makhmoudov c. Russie, no 35082/04, §§ 63-65, 26 juillet 2007, et Schwabe et M.G., précité, §§ 110-113).
- EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 39611/18
GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (IV)
"255.The Court notes that as a general principle of law the initial burden of proof in relation to an allegation is borne by the party which makes the allegation in question (affirmanti incumbit probatio; see, for example, Nolan and K. v. Russia, no. 2512/04, § 69, 12 February 2009, and Makhmudov v. Russia, no. 35082/04, § 68, 26 July 2007). - EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 9049/06
ÖZALP ULUSOY c. TURQUIE
Il ressort de cette jurisprudence que les autorités ont le devoir de prendre les mesures nécessaires pour garantir le bon déroulement de toute manifestation légale et la sécurité de tous les citoyens (Makhmoudov c. Russie, no 35082/04, §§ 63-65, 26 juillet 2007). - EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 20347/07
EGITIM VE BILIM EMEKÇILERI SENDIKASI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
Enfin, la Cour rappelle que les autorités ont le devoir de prendre les mesures nécessaires pour toute manifestation légale afin de garantir le bon déroulement de celle-ci et la sécurité de tous les citoyens (Oya Ataman, précité, § 35, Makhmoudov c. Russie, no 35082/04, §§ 63-65, 26 juillet 2007, Skiba, décision précitée, Gün et autres, précité, § 69, et Kudrevicius et autres, précité, § 159). - EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 2512/04
NOLAN AND K. v. RUSSIA
Makhmudov v. Russia , no. 35082/04, § 68, 26 July 2007; Fadeyeva v. Russia , no. 55723/00, § 79, ECHR 2005-IV; and. - EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 70396/11
AKARSUBASI c. TURQUIE
Quant à la question de savoir si l'intervention litigieuse était nécessaire dans une société démocratique, la Cour se réfère d'abord aux principes fondamentaux qui se dégagent de sa jurisprudence relative à l'article 11 (Plattform « Ärzte für das Leben'c. Autriche, 21 juin 1988, § 32, série A no 139, Piermont c. France, 27 avril 1995, §§ 76-77, série A no 314, Stankov et Organisation macédonienne unie Ilinden c. Bulgarie, nos 29221/95 et 29225/95, §§ 77-78, CEDH 2001-IX, Djavit An c. Turquie, no 20652/92, §§ 56-57, CEDH 2003-III, Güneri et autres c. Turquie, nos 42853/98, 43609/98 et 44291/98, § 76, 12 juillet 2005, Makhmoudov c. Russie, no 35082/04, §§ 63-65, 26 juillet 2007, Schwabe et M.G. c. Allemagne, nos 8080/08 et 8577/08, §§ 110-113, CEDH 2011 (extraits), Özalp Ulusoy c. Turquie, no 9049/06, § 72, 4 juin 2013, et Taranenko c. Russie, no 19554/05, § 66, 15 mai 2014). - EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 56395/08
ÖZBENT ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
Quant à la question de savoir si l'intervention litigieuse était nécessaire dans une société démocratique, la Cour se réfère d'abord aux principes fondamentaux qui se dégagent de sa jurisprudence relative à l'article 11 précité (Plattform « Ärzte für das Leben'c. Autriche, 21 juin 1988, § 32, série A no 139, Piermont c. France, 27 avril 1995, §§ 76-77, série A no 314, Djavit An c. Turquie, no 20652/92, §§ 56-57, CEDH 2003-III, Stankov et Organisation macédonienne unie Ilinden c. Bulgarie, nos 29221/95 et 29225/95, §§ 77-78, CEDH 2001-IX, Güneri et autres c. Turquie, nos 42853/98, 43609/98 et 44291/98, § 76, 12 juillet 2005, Makhmoudov c. Russie, no 35082/04, §§ 63-65, 26 juillet 2007, Schwabe et M.G. c. Allemagne, nos 8080/08 et 8577/08, §§ 110-113, CEDH 2011 (extraits), Özalp Ulusoy c. Turquie, no 9049/06, § 72, 4 juin 2013, et Taranenko c. Russie, no 19554/05, § 66, 15 mai 2014). - EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 59109/08
HELSINKI COMMITTEE OF ARMENIA v. ARMENIA
In so doing, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 11 and, moreover, that they based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 87, ECHR 2001-IX, and Makhmudov v. Russia, no. 35082/04, § 65, 26 July 2007). - EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 3315/04
OAO AFANASIY-PIVO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 63471/14 (anhängig)
KIBRIS TÜRK ORTA EǦITIM ÖǦRETMENLER SENDIKASI v. TÜRKIYE