Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOUKHOVETSKI c. UKRAINE

  Art. 14+P1 Abs. 3, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Non-violation de P1-3 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 14+P1-3 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SUKHOVETSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Art. 14+P1 Abs. 3, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  No violation of P1-3 Not necessary to examine under Art. 14+P1-3 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 13716/02
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 13716/02

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 13716/02

  It is, however, for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with; it has to satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 56618/00

  FEDERACION NACIONALISTA CANARIA contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 13716/02

  Moreover, as observed above, the Court has stated on many occasions that States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in the field of electoral legislation, so that even a system which fixes a relatively high threshold, for example, as regards the number of signatures required to stand for election or a minimum percentage of votes cast nationally to qualify for a local seat, may be deemed compatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see Federación Nacionalista Canaria v. Spain (dec.), no. 56618/00, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 13716/02

  There is room for implied limitations and Contracting States must be given a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, § 52, Series A no. 113, and Py v. France, no. 66289/01, § 46, ECHR 2005-I).

 
• EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 46726/99

  PODKOLZINA c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 13716/02

  For the purposes of Article 3, any electoral legislation must be assessed in the light of the political evolution of the country concerned, so that features that would be unacceptable in the context of one system may be justified in the context of another (see Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 69949/01

  AZIZ c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 13716/02

  Thus, in Matthews and Aziz, the applicants (as a resident of Gibraltar and a member of the Turkish-Cypriot community living in the government-controlled area of Cyprus respectively) had no right to vote in the elections to the European Parliament or the Cypriot House of Representatives due to legislative lacunae (see Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 64, ECHR 1999-I, and Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 29, ECHR 2004-V).
• EGMR, 09.01.2019 - 17707/02

  MELNYCHENKO CONTRE L'UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 13716/02

  In particular, the Court has accepted that stricter requirements may be imposed on the eligibility to stand for election to parliament, as distinguished from voting eligibility (see Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 57, ECHR 2004-X).

• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 16632/09

  DANIS ET ASSOCIATION DES PERSONNES D'ORIGINE TURQUE c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour peut convenir avec le Gouvernement que la nouvelle loi électorale avait pour but de garantir le droit à une représentativité effective des organisations non encore représentées au Parlement et d'éviter les candidatures dépourvues de sérieux (voir, mutatis mutandis, Özgürlük ve Dayanisma Partisi (ÖDP), précité, § 42, et Soukhovetski c. Ukraine, no 13716/02, § 62, CEDH 2006-VI).
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 29400/05

  COMMUNIST PARTY OF RUSSIA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In examining this question the Court will bear in mind that "States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in the field of electoral legislation" (see Sukhovetskyy v. Ukraine, no. 13716/02, § 68, ECHR 2006-VI), which is a fortiori true where the case concerns the extent of the State's positive obligations, and that the State is only required to take those measures which are "reasonably available" (see, mutatis mutandis, E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, § 99, 26 November 2002).
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30386/05

  EKOGLASNOST c. BULGARIE

  Dans son arrêt Soukhovetski c. Ukraine, no 13716/02, § 73, CEDH 2006-VI, la Cour a admis que l'obligation de payer un cautionnement électoral d'un montant raisonnable qui ne constitue pas un obstacle administratif ou financier insurmontable pour le candidat aux élections législatives n'est pas constitutive d'une violation du droit électoral passif.
• EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 14737/08

  USPASKICH v. LITHUANIA

  The Lithuanian court had regard to the Court's case-law on the subject and emphasised that the right to stand for elections was not absolute (the Supreme Administrative Court referred to Sukhovetskyy v. Ukraine, no. 13716/02, §§ 50 and 51, ECHR 2006-VI).