Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-a - Abuse of the right of application);Struck out of the list (Article 37-1 - Striking out applications;Article ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

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

  [DEU] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Abuse of the right of application;Struck out of the ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• lto.de (Kurzinformation)

  Russland verurteilt: Recht auf freie Wahl verletzt

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EKMR, 11.09.1995 - 27311/95

  TIMKE v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  Similarly, regional and LÓ“nder councils were held to form constituent parts of the legislature in Italy, Austria and Germany (see Vito Sante Santoro v. Italy, no. 36681/97, §§ 52-53, ECHR 2004-VI; X v. Austria, no. 7008/75, decision of 12 July 1976, Decisions and Reports (DR) 6, p. 120; and Timke v. Germany, no. 27311/95, decision of 11 September 1995, DR 82-A, p. 158).
• EKMR, 12.07.1976 - 7008/75

  X. v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  Similarly, regional and LÓ“nder councils were held to form constituent parts of the legislature in Italy, Austria and Germany (see Vito Sante Santoro v. Italy, no. 36681/97, §§ 52-53, ECHR 2004-VI; X v. Austria, no. 7008/75, decision of 12 July 1976, Decisions and Reports (DR) 6, p. 120; and Timke v. Germany, no. 27311/95, decision of 11 September 1995, DR 82-A, p. 158).
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

  LYKOUREZOS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  Furthermore, the object and purpose of the Convention, which is an instrument for the protection of human rights, requires its provisions to be interpreted and applied in such a way as to make their stipulations not theoretical or illusory, but practical and effective (see, among many other authorities, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, and Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, § 56, ECHR 2006-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 42482/02

  ANTONENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  It is clear that the elections to the State Duma qualify as the elections of a legislature in terms of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The parties also do not dispute the applicability of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to the elections to the St Petersburg LA, the legislative body of a constituent subject of the Russian Federation (see, for similar situation, Antonenko v. Russia, no. 42482/02 (dec.), 23 May 2006, where the parties and the Court did not dispute the applicability of the provision).
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  The absence of a written agreement to recover fees does not exclude the existence of a contractual obligation (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 18705/06

  NAMAT ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  In the latter case, the Court has limited its examination to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, §§ 57 and 81, 8 April 2010; Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, no. 20799/06, §§ 31-32, 30 September 2010, and Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 48555/10 and 48377/10, §§ 94-95, 13 October 2015).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  They reiterated that a wide margin of appreciation was accorded to States in the electoral sphere (the Government referred to the Court's judgments in cases of Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, §§ 52 and 54 Series A no. 113; Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC], no. 10226/03, § 109, ECHR 2008; Zdanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, §§ 100, 110, 132 and 135, ECHR 2006-IV, ECHR 2008; and others) and argued that this margin had not been overstepped in the present case.
• EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 20799/06

  KERIMOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  In the latter case, the Court has limited its examination to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, §§ 57 and 81, 8 April 2010; Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, no. 20799/06, §§ 31-32, 30 September 2010, and Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 48555/10 and 48377/10, §§ 94-95, 13 October 2015).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 39343/98

  KLEYN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  For example, the applicants who have not pursued the same remedy that had proven ineffective for the other applicants in the same position can be reasonably absolved from doing so (see, mutatis mutandis, Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98 and 3 others, § 156, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 48555/10

  RIZA ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  In the latter case, the Court has limited its examination to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, §§ 57 and 81, 8 April 2010; Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, no. 20799/06, §§ 31-32, 30 September 2010, and Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 48555/10 and 48377/10, §§ 94-95, 13 October 2015).