Rechtsprechung
| EGMR - 28873/15 |
Anhängiges Verfahren
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
OOO TELEKANAL DOZHD v. RUSSIA
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 14888/03
GODLEVSKIY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR - 28873/15
Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference "prescribed by law" and was that law sufficiently clear and foreseeable in its application? What was the objective link between the question of the poll and the plaintiffs (compare Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 44, 31 July 2007; Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 44, 23 October 2008, and Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 45, 4 April 2013)?. - EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 4977/05
REZNIK v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR - 28873/15
Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference "prescribed by law" and was that law sufficiently clear and foreseeable in its application? What was the objective link between the question of the poll and the plaintiffs (compare Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 44, 31 July 2007; Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 44, 23 October 2008, and Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 45, 4 April 2013)?. - EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 25968/02
DYULDIN AND KISLOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR - 28873/15
Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference "prescribed by law" and was that law sufficiently clear and foreseeable in its application? What was the objective link between the question of the poll and the plaintiffs (compare Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 44, 31 July 2007; Godlevskiy v. Russia, no. 14888/03, § 44, 23 October 2008, and Reznik v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 45, 4 April 2013)?.