Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A.E. v. POLAND

  (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14480/04

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14480/04

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial and enforcement proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are set out in the Court's decisions in the cases of Charzynnÿski v. Poland (no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V), and Ratajczyk v. Poland (no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII), and in its judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, (no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 67299/01

  DUBJAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14480/04

  The Court will have regard in this connection to the compatibility of the amount with its own awards in similar cases, bearing in mind the principles which it has developed for determining victim status and for assessing the amount of non-pecuniary compensation to be awarded (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 85-107, ECHR 2006-...,; Scordino v. Italy (no.1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 193-215, ECHR-2006-...; and Dubjakova v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 10 October 2004; Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 27278/03, §§ 27-32, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14480/04

  Any measure restricting that right must be lawful, pursue one of the legitimate aims referred to in the third paragraph of the above-mentioned Convention provision and strike a fair balance between the public interest and the individual's rights (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V, and Riener v. Bulgaria no. 46343/99, § 109, 23 May 2006).

• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 38121/20

  L.B. v. LITHUANIA

  The Court observes that the cases in which it accepted that interference with the freedom of movement pursued the legitimate aim of the maintenance of public order concerned, for example, restrictions on travelling abroad imposed on persons who had been charged with criminal offences, pending their prosecution (see A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, § 47, 31 March 2009; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, § 54, 17 February 2011; and Kerimli, cited above, § 49); travel bans on convicted and not yet rehabilitated offenders (see Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, § 63, 10 February 2011); preventive measures, including special supervision, taken against suspected members of the Mafia (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 194, ECHR 2000-IV); or measures which sought to restrict individuals' right to leave the country for the purpose of securing the payment of taxes (see Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 74288/14 and 64568/16, § 92, 14 October 2021, and the case-law cited therein).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29713/05

  STAMOSE v. BULGARIA

  In previous cases under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 the Court (or the former European Commission of Human Rights) has been concerned with such bans imposed in connection with pending criminal proceedings (see Schmid v. Austria, no. 10670/83, Commission decision of 9 July 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 44, p. 195; Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, ECHR 2001-V; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, ECHR 2006-XII; Sissanis v. Romania, no. 23468/02, 25 January 2007; Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, 21 October 2008; A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, 31 March 2009; Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 23530/02, 2 July 2009; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, 20 January 2011; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, 17 February 2011; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, 7 June 2011; and Miazdzyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, 24 January 2012), enforcement of criminal sentences (see M. v. Germany, no. 10307/83, Commission decision of 6 March 1984, DR 37, p. 113), lack of rehabilitation in respect of criminal offences (see Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, 10 February 2011), pending bankruptcy proceedings (see Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, ECHR 2003-IX), refusal to pay customs penalties (see Napijalo v. Croatia, no. 66485/01, 13 November 2003), failure to pay taxes (see Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, 23 May 2006), failure to pay judgment debts to private persons (see Ignatov v. Bulgaria, no. 50/02, 2 July 2009, and Gochev v. Bulgaria, no. 34383/03, 26 November 2009), knowledge of "State secrets" (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, ECHR 2006-XV), failure to comply with military-service obligations (see Peltonen v. Finland, no. 19583/92, Commission decision of 20 February 1995, DR 80-a, p. 38, and Marangos v. Cyprus, no. 31106/96, Commission decision of 20 May 1997, unreported), mental illness coupled with a lack of arrangements for appropriate care in the destination country (see Nordblad v. Sweden, no. 19076/91, Commission decision of 13 October 1993, unreported), and court orders prohibiting minor children from being removed to a foreign country (see Roldan Texeira and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 40655/98, 26 October 2000, and Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 43978/09

  BATTISTA v. ITALY

  - pending criminal proceedings (see Schmidt v. Austria, no. 10670/83, Commission decision of 9 July 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 44, p. 195; Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, ECHR 2001-V; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, ECHR 2006-XII; Sissanis v. Romania, no. 23468/02, 25 January 2007; Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, 21 October 2008; A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, 31 March 2009; Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 23530/02, 2 July 2009; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, 20 January 2011; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, 17 February 2011; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, 7 June 2011; and Miazdzyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, 24 January 2012);.

 
• EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13

  MURSALIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  However, having regard to its finding in respect of the complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the same facts again by reference to Article 8 (see Riener, cited above, § 134; A. E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, § 54, 31 March 2009; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, § 56, 7 June 2011; and Battista v. Italy, no. 43978/09, § 52, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 61365/16

  S.E.v. SERBIA

  However, the Court and the Commission have previously been called upon to examine situations in which an applicant had already acquired a travel document which was subsequently seized, which he or she was arbitrarily denied the use of, or which was not reissued merely as a result of a decision by the State authorities to restrict or deny his or her right to leave a country on account of a travel ban/sanction or because of his or her failure to comply with the relevant legal or factual requirements prescribed by law (see, among many authorities, Peltonen, cited above, concerning a refusal to issue a passport to a Finnish national to ensure the performance of military service; Baumann, cited above, § 63, and A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, §§ 47-50, 31 March 2009, in the context of a pending criminal prosecution; Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 110, 23 May 2006, and Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, § 30, ECHR 2012, concerning a travel ban and passport retention on the basis of a nine-year tax dispute and breaches of immigration laws respectively; Soltysyak v. Russia, no. 4663/05, §§ 37-38, 10 February 2011, and Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, §§ 35-36, ECHR 2006-XV, in the context of refusal to issue a travel document to nationals because of knowledge of "State secrets"; Battista v. Italy, no. 43978/09, §§ 26 and 37, ECHR 2014, concerning an inability, owing to a failure to pay child maintenance, to obtain a new identity document valid for travel abroad; Roldan Texeira and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 40655/98, 26 October 2000, and Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, §§ 212-215, 27 September 2011, in the context of restrictions imposed by court orders or the police on minor children travelling abroad to protect their interests or those of their parents).
• EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 24733/04

  PFEIFER v. BULGARIA

  The travel ban imposed on the applicant clearly amounted to such a measure (see, mutatis mutandis, Schmidt v. Austria, no. 10670/83, Commission decision of 9 July 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 44, p. 195; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, § 33, ECHR 2006-XII; Sissanis v. Romania, no. 23468/02, § 64, 25 January 2007; Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, § 22, 21 October 2008; A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, § 47, 31 March 2009; and Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 23530/02, § 70, 2 July 2009).