Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  J.B. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Partly struck out of the list;Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  J.B. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 36732/97

  PISANO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 45434/12

  In this connection, the Court also emphasises that, depending on the events that have occurred subsequent to the lodging of an application, it may strike a case out of its list on one or more of the grounds set out in Article 37 of the Convention, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant can still claim "victim" status (see Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 39, 24 October 2002), or even irrespective of the question whether the applicant can still claim such status (see Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 96, ECHR 2007-I; Association SOS Attentats and de Boëry v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 76642/01, § 41, ECHR 2006-XIV; Kaftailova v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 59643/00, § 47, 7 December 2007; and El Majjaoui and Stichting Touba Moskee v. the Netherlands (striking out) [GC], no. 25525/03, § 29, 20 December 2007).
• EGMR, 07.12.2007 - 59643/00

  KAFTAÏLOVA c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 45434/12

  In this connection, the Court also emphasises that, depending on the events that have occurred subsequent to the lodging of an application, it may strike a case out of its list on one or more of the grounds set out in Article 37 of the Convention, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant can still claim "victim" status (see Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 39, 24 October 2002), or even irrespective of the question whether the applicant can still claim such status (see Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 96, ECHR 2007-I; Association SOS Attentats and de Boëry v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 76642/01, § 41, ECHR 2006-XIV; Kaftailova v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 59643/00, § 47, 7 December 2007; and El Majjaoui and Stichting Touba Moskee v. the Netherlands (striking out) [GC], no. 25525/03, § 29, 20 December 2007).
• EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 25525/03

  EL MAJJAOUI AND STICHTING TOUBA MOSKEE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 45434/12

  In this connection, the Court also emphasises that, depending on the events that have occurred subsequent to the lodging of an application, it may strike a case out of its list on one or more of the grounds set out in Article 37 of the Convention, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant can still claim "victim" status (see Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 39, 24 October 2002), or even irrespective of the question whether the applicant can still claim such status (see Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 96, ECHR 2007-I; Association SOS Attentats and de Boëry v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 76642/01, § 41, ECHR 2006-XIV; Kaftailova v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 59643/00, § 47, 7 December 2007; and El Majjaoui and Stichting Touba Moskee v. the Netherlands (striking out) [GC], no. 25525/03, § 29, 20 December 2007).

 
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 17550/90

  VIJAYANATHAN AND PUSPARAJAH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 45434/12

  Furthermore, in a number of cases (involving the deportation or extradition of non-nationals and raising an issue under Article 8 of the Convention) the Court has held that an applicant could not claim to be the "victim" of a measure if it was not enforceable or was no longer in force (see, for instance, Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B; Pancenko v. Latvia (dec.), no. 40772/98, 28 October 1999; Mikheyeva v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50029/99, 12 September 2002; Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005; Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005; and Fjodorova and Others v. Latvia (dec.), no. 69405/01, 6 April 2006).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 45434/12

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  DENISOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 45434/12

  Future income cannot be considered to constitute "possessions" unless it has already been earned or is definitely payable (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 137, 25 September 2018, with further references).
• EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01

  ASSOCIATION SOS ATTENTATS ET DE BOERY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 45434/12

  In this connection, the Court also emphasises that, depending on the events that have occurred subsequent to the lodging of an application, it may strike a case out of its list on one or more of the grounds set out in Article 37 of the Convention, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant can still claim "victim" status (see Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 39, 24 October 2002), or even irrespective of the question whether the applicant can still claim such status (see Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 96, ECHR 2007-I; Association SOS Attentats and de Boëry v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 76642/01, § 41, ECHR 2006-XIV; Kaftailova v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 59643/00, § 47, 7 December 2007; and El Majjaoui and Stichting Touba Moskee v. the Netherlands (striking out) [GC], no. 25525/03, § 29, 20 December 2007).
• EuGH, 06.11.2012 - C-286/12

  Die starke Absenkung des Rentenalters ungarischer Richter stellt eine nicht …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 45434/12

  In its judgment C-286/12 European Commission v. Hungary adopted on 6 November 2012 (ECLI:EU:C:2012:687; see paragraph 20 above), the CJEU held, in point 1 of the operative part:.
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 45434/12

  The Convention leaves to each Contracting State, in the first place, the task of securing the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms it enshrines (see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51).
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 65020/13

  ANASTASOV AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 45434/12

  Where a State has taken a significant step by introducing a compensatory remedy, the Court must leave a wider margin of appreciation to the State to allow it to organise the remedy in a manner consistent with its own legal system and traditions and consonant with the standard of living in the country concerned, even if that results in awards of amounts that are lower than those fixed by the Court in similar cases (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 80, ECHR 2006-V; Domján v. Hungary (dec.), no. 5433/17, § 27, 14 November 2017; and, in the context of a case raising an issue under Article 8, Anastasov and Others v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 65020/13, § 71, 18 October 2016).
• EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 5433/17

  DOMJÁN v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 12323/11

  MICHAUD v. FRANCE

• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 16915/21

  DANILET c. ROUMANIE

  En l'espèce, l'intéressé n'a pas produit d'éléments suffisants permettant de dire que la baisse de sa rémunération mensuelle de 5 % pendant deux mois seulement a eu de sérieuses incidences sur le « cercle intime'de sa vie privée (comparer avec J.B. et autres c. Hongrie (déc.), nos 45434/12 et 2 autres, § 132, 27 novembre 2018).
• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20

  JUSZCZYSZYN v. POLAND

  45434/12 and 2 others, 27 November 2018, and the judgments in the cases of Miroslava Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 40072/13, 19 October 2021, and Camelia Bogdan v. Romania, no. 36889/18, 20 October 2020; compare also, outside the judicial context, Balliktas Bingöllü v. Turkey, no. 76730/12, 22 June 2021, and Grazulevici?«te v. Lithuania, no. 53176/17, 14 December 2021).
• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 25240/20

  GYULUMYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  Furthermore, there are no other indications that the "inner circle" of the applicants' private life was affected by the termination of their terms of office (see, for example, J.B. and Others v. Hungary (dec.), no. 45434/12, § 132, 27 November 2018, and contrast Xhoxhaj v. Albania, no. 15227/19, § 363, 9 February 2021).

 
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 36889/18

  CAMELIA BOGDAN c. ROUMANIE

  Quant aux possibilités de nouer et de maintenir des relations avec autrui, la Cour relève que la requérante a été réintégrée dans ses fonctions de juge une fois la procédure contentieuse terminée (paragraphe 14 ci-dessus) et que, même si sa situation parmi ses pairs a été atteinte dans une certaine mesure, il n'existe aucun élément qui indiquerait que les conséquences dénoncées par l'intéressée étaient importantes au point de constituer une ingérence dans son droit au respect de la vie privée (voir, mutatis mutandis, J.B. et autres c. Hongrie (déc.), nos 45434/12 et 2 autres, § 133, 27 novembre 2018).
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 70489/17

  ALGIRDAS BUTKEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  In the light of the above, and with regard to the applicant establishing and maintaining relationships with others, the Court finds that even if his reputation among his colleagues was affected by the disclosure of his telephone conversation, there are no factual grounds, let alone evidence, which he has put forward that would indicate that such an effect was so substantial as to have constituted a disproportionate interference with his rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (compare J.B. and Others v. Hungary (dec.), no. 45434/12 and 2 others, §§ 132-33, 27 November 2018).
• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 14656/15

  VADALÀ v. ITALY

  Consequently, the matter giving rise to the applicant's complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 7 of the Convention can be considered to have been "resolved" within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, J.B. and Others v. Hungary (dec.), no. 45434/12 and 2 others, 27 November 2018).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 40072/13

  MIROSLAVA TODOROVA c. BULGARIE

  En l'espèce, la requérante n'a produit aucun élément permettant de dire que la baisse de sa rémunération aurait eu de sérieuses incidences sur le « cercle intime'de sa vie privée en la plaçant dans une situation financière difficile (comparer avec J.B. et autres c. Hongrie (déc.), nos 45434/12 et 2 autres, § 132, 27 novembre 2018).
• EGMR, 07.11.2019 - 32644/09

  APOSTOLOVI v. BULGARIA

  45434/12 and 2 others, § 59, 27 November 2018).
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 40026/09

  RAHIMOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  45434/12 and 2 others, §§ 58-59, 27 November 2018).
• EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 74048/17

  TOTOPA c. ESPAGNE

  Le fait qu'un(e) requérant(e) ait connu une longue période d'insécurité et d'incertitude juridique n'a pas été considéré par la Cour comme une circonstance l'empêchant, à elle seule, de qualifier un remède comme étant « adéquat ", même en l'absence de toute autre indemnisation (voir Kaftaïlova, précité, § 53; et J.B. et autres c. Hongrie (déc.), no. 45434/12 et deux autres, §§ 65-69, 27 novembre 2018).