Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOLUB v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-general (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-general (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GOLUB c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  Art. 1, Art. 4 Abs. 1, Art. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 5871/07

  BERKOVICH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  5871/07 and 9 others, § 97, 27 March 2018 in respect of Article 2 of Protocol No. 2 to the Convention).
• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 37452/02

  STUMMER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  The Court reiterates its case-law on Article 4 of the Convention (Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, §§ 32, 34 et 38, Series A no. 70; Siliadin v. France, no. 73316/01, §§ 112, 115 and 116, ECHR 2005-VII; Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, §§ 116-118 and 120, ECHR 2011; and Chitos v. Greece, no. 51637/12, § 79, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  The Court reiterates that Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 guarantees to any person a right to liberty of movement within a given territory and the right to leave that territory, which implies the right to travel to a country of the person's choice to which he or she may be admitted (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V; Khlyustov v. Russia, no. 28975/05, § 64, 11 July 2013; Berkovich and Others, cited above, § 78; and Dobrovitskaya and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos.

 
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  The Court reiterates its case-law on Article 4 of the Convention (Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, §§ 32, 34 et 38, Series A no. 70; Siliadin v. France, no. 73316/01, §§ 112, 115 and 116, ECHR 2005-VII; Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, §§ 116-118 and 120, ECHR 2011; and Chitos v. Greece, no. 51637/12, § 79, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  The Court notes that the parties in the present case maintain views on the issue of jurisdiction which are similar to those expressed by the parties in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, §§ 83-101, ECHR 2012 (extracts)) and in Mozer (cited above, §§ 81-95).
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  DE TOMMASO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  In order to determine whether someone has been "deprived of his liberty" within the meaning of Article 5, the starting point must be his concrete situation and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, §§ 58-59, Series A no. 22; Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 92, Series A no. 39; and Riera Blume and Others v. Spain, no. 37680/97, § 28, ECHR 1999-VII; De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 80, 23 February 2017).
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  DOBROVITSKAYA AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  41660/10 and 5 others, § 94, 3 September 2019).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  In order to determine whether someone has been "deprived of his liberty" within the meaning of Article 5, the starting point must be his concrete situation and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, §§ 58-59, Series A no. 22; Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 92, Series A no. 39; and Riera Blume and Others v. Spain, no. 37680/97, § 28, ECHR 1999-VII; De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 80, 23 February 2017).
• EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 56402/12

  CORREIA DE MATOS c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  The Court has previously examined situations in which the applicants were said to have waived their rights under the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Correia de Matos v. Portugal [GC], no. 56402/12, § 128, 4 April 2018 in respect of Article 6 of the Convention; Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 103-110, 5 July 2016 in respect of Article 5 of the Convention; Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos.
• EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 28975/05

  KHLYUSTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  The Court reiterates that Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 guarantees to any person a right to liberty of movement within a given territory and the right to leave that territory, which implies the right to travel to a country of the person's choice to which he or she may be admitted (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V; Khlyustov v. Russia, no. 28975/05, § 64, 11 July 2013; Berkovich and Others, cited above, § 78; and Dobrovitskaya and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 14.10.1999 - 37680/97

  RIERA BLUME AND OTHERS v. SPAIN

• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  LYPOVCHENKO AND HALABUDENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Within the particular context of the Transnistrian region, the Court has examined so far only restrictions on travel outside the region imposed by acts undertaken by the de facto "MRT agents" (see Dobrovitskaya and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], nos. 41660/10 and 5 others, § 94, 3 September 2019, and Golub v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], no. 48020/12, 30 November 2021).