Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOZUL AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KOZUL AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 30.10.2007 - 17556/05

  MARCIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 38695/13

  It must, however, be noted that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or of its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found (see Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, § 71, ECHR 2006, and Marcic and Others v. Serbia, no. 17556/05, § 64, 30 October 2007).
• EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 6586/03

  BRANDUSE c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 38695/13

  This being the case, it cannot be established that the State failed to take reasonable measures to secure the applicants" right under Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Galev and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 18324/04, 29 September 2009; compare and contrast the Court's findings in noise-pollution cases such as Moreno Gómez v. Spain, no. 4143/02, §§ 59-63, ECHR 2004-X, Branduse v. Romania, no. 6586/03, §§ 68-76, 7 April 2009, and Mileva and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 38695/13

  In López Ostra (9 December 1994, § 51, Series A no. 303-C), which concerned pollution caused by the noise and odours generated by a waste-treatment plant, the Court stated that "severe environmental pollution may affect individuals" well-being and prevent them from enjoying their homes in such a way as to affect their private and family life adversely, without, however, seriously endangering their health".

 
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 38695/13

  Thus in Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom (21 February 1990, § 40, Series A no. 172) the Court declared Article 8 applicable because "[i]n each case, albeit to greatly differing degrees, the quality of the applicant's private life and the scope for enjoying the amenities of his home ha[d] been adversely affected by the noise generated by aircraft using Heathrow Airport".
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 30859/10

  SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 38695/13

  30859/10 and 6 others, § 29, 14 January 2014).
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 38695/13

  There would be no arguable claim under Article 8 if the detriment complained of was negligible in comparison to the environmental hazards inherent to life in every modern city (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, §§ 68-69, ECHR 2005-IV, and Fägerskiöld v. Sweden (dec.), no. 37664/04, 26 February 2008, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 4143/02

  MORENO GÓMEZ c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 38695/13

  This being the case, it cannot be established that the State failed to take reasonable measures to secure the applicants" right under Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Galev and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 18324/04, 29 September 2009; compare and contrast the Court's findings in noise-pollution cases such as Moreno Gómez v. Spain, no. 4143/02, §§ 59-63, ECHR 2004-X, Branduse v. Romania, no. 6586/03, §§ 68-76, 7 April 2009, and Mileva and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 18324/04

  GALEV & OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 38695/13

  This being the case, it cannot be established that the State failed to take reasonable measures to secure the applicants" right under Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Galev and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 18324/04, 29 September 2009; compare and contrast the Court's findings in noise-pollution cases such as Moreno Gómez v. Spain, no. 4143/02, §§ 59-63, ECHR 2004-X, Branduse v. Romania, no. 6586/03, §§ 68-76, 7 April 2009, and Mileva and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.
• EGMR, 26.02.2008 - 37664/04

  FÄGERSKIÖLD v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 38695/13

  There would be no arguable claim under Article 8 if the detriment complained of was negligible in comparison to the environmental hazards inherent to life in every modern city (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, §§ 68-69, ECHR 2005-IV, and Fägerskiöld v. Sweden (dec.), no. 37664/04, 26 February 2008, and the cases cited therein).