Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIKAYELYAN v. ARMENIA

  Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MIKAYELYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 1879/10

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 11 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on these complaints (see, mutatis mutandis, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05

  TARANENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 1879/10

  This is true even when the demonstration results in damage or other disorder (see Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 88, 15 May 2014).
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37410/97

  KAMIL UZUN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 1879/10

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 11 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on these complaints (see, mutatis mutandis, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 8157/10

  MESUT YILDIZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 1879/10

  Similarly, the organisers of the event should not be held responsible for the conduct of its participants as long as they themselves do not commit, incite or condone any reprehensible acts (see Mesut Yildiz and Others v. Turkey, no. 8157/10, § 34, 18 July 2017).

• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 22665/10

  PASHINYAN v. ARMENIA

  In sum, the domestic courts have failed to provide sufficiently specific examples of reprehensible acts attributable to the applicant, including incitement or instigation of violence, in the course of his involvement in the protest movement and the rallies which gripped Armenia in the aftermath of the presidential election (compare Mushegh Saghatelyan, cited above, §§ 249-53, and Myasnik Malkhasyan, cited above, §§ 71-79; for an application of the relevant case-law principles to similar factual circumstances see, Arzumanyan v. Armenia, [Committee], no. 63845/09, §§ 51-59, 31 August 2021, and Mikayelyan v. Armenia, [Committee], no. 1879/10, §§ 57-65, 31 August 2021).