Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07   

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
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2011,55329
EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07 (https://dejure.org/2011,55329)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27.09.2011 - 39417/07 (https://dejure.org/2011,55329)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27. September 2011 - 39417/07 (https://dejure.org/2011,55329)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55329) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ALIM v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
    No violation of Art. 5-1-f Violation of Art. 8 (in case of expulsion from Russia) Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





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

Wird zitiert von ... (10)

  • EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 52722/15

    Asyl: Russland darf Syrer nicht abschieben

    Therefore, at the time, as the applicant was found guilty of the offence, the court had no choice but to impose that penalty, irrespective of the validity of the arguments relating to Article 2 or 3 of the Convention (see, by way of comparison, Gablishvili v. Russia, no. 39428/12, §§ 49-53 and §§ 56-57, 26 June 2014, and Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 95, 27 September 2011, which dealt with complaints under Article 8 of the Convention).
  • EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

    MALOFEYEVA v. RUSSIA

    The Court finds it regrettable that the national courts in the administrative offence procedure in the present case did not assess the applicant's situation, including the penalty to be imposed, taking into account the relevant principles under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (see, for comparison, Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 95, 27 September 2011).
  • EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

    AZIMOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court reiterates that a period of detention will in principle be lawful if carried out under a court order (see Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 55, 27 September 2011).
  • EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25501/07

    NOVIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The Court has doubts as to whether the administrative-offence procedure was conceptualised, or at least applied, in such a way as to allow the freedom-of-expression arguments to have any weight and to accommodate a proportionality analysis or, at least, an assessment leading to a result which would be proportionate in the particular circumstances of a given case (see, however, paragraph 70 above; see, for comparison, Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 95, 27 September 2011).
  • EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 62892/12

    AKRAM KARIMOV v. RUSSIA

    The Government submitted, with a reference to Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 54, 27 September 2011, that administrative removal constituted "expulsion" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 50552/13

    RAKHIMOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court reiterates that a period of detention will in principle be lawful if carried out under a court order (see Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 55, 27 September 2011).
  • EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

    NIYAZOV v. RUSSIA

    At the same time, the Court reiterates that in earlier cases it has been prepared to accept that such a flaw, taken separately, did not amount to a gross and obvious irregularity (see, in the context of a failure to give reasons to justify the necessity of holding an applicant in custody, Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 57, 27 September 2011, and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 81, 6 December 2007).
  • EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 38898/04

    ROZHKOV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

    In the present case, the Court is not satisfied that the judicial review adequately assessed the factual and legal elements pertaining to the proportionality assessment of the measure (see, by way of comparison, Abashev v. Russia, no. 9096/09, §§ 40-42, 27 June 2013, and Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 95, 27 September 2011).
  • EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 20110/13

    ISMAILOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court reiterates that a period of detention will in principle be lawful if carried out under a court order (see Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 55, 27 September 2011).
  • EGMR - 70090/10 (anhängig)

    TSERKOV YEVANGELSKIKH KHRISTIAN-BAPTISTOV AND PANASENKO v. RUSSIA

    - When dealing with the administrative offence charges against the applicants, did the national courts carry out a proportionality analysis, weighing the applicants" Article 9 freedom vis-à-vis a legitimate public interest (see, for comparison, Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 95, 27 September 2011, and Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, § 141, 30 May 2013)? Were the applicants given advance notice that their activities were in breach of the law? After breaches had been uncovered, were the applicants afforded time or opportunity to remedy the alleged irregularities?.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht