Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VOOL AND TOOMIK v. ESTONIA

  Violation of Article 14+8-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VOOL v. ESTONIA and 1 other application

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06

  VARNAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 7613/18

  Relevant international materials 54. The relevant United Nations standards concerning the rights of detainees in pre-trial detention are described in Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, §§ 71-72, 9 July 2013).

  It was only after he learned about the Court's judgment in Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, 9 July 2013) that he lodged the first written application.

• EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 12879/09

  ECIS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 7613/18

  Instead, it must confine itself, as far as possible, to examining the issues raised by the case before it (see Ä’cis v. Latvia, no. 12879/09, § 43, 10 January 2019).
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 33172/16

  CHALDAYEV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 7613/18

  The Court further notes that the general principles concerning the applicability of Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, and the matter of remand prisoners having "other status" in the sense of Article 14 and being in an analogous position to that of convicted prisoners with regard to having family visits, have been extensively laid out in Chaldayev v. Russia (no. 33172/16, §§ 70-72, 28 May 2019); Costel Gaciu (cited above, §§ 49-50 and 52-55) and Varnas (cited above, §§ 108-114).

 
• EGMR, 27.02.2020 - 30778/15

  KHADIJA ISMAYILOVA v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 7613/18

  The Court reiterates that, as a general rule, it does not examine any new matters raised after the Government have been given notice of the application, unless the new matters are an elaboration on the applicant's original complaints to the Court (see Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 30778/15, § 53, 27 February 2020).
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15591/03

  SELEZNEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 7613/18

  The Court does not therefore find it appropriate to examine these complaints in the present context (see Khadija Ismayilova, cited above, § 54; and Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, § 56, 26 June 2008).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 7613/18

  Because the applicant may subsequently elucidate or elaborate upon his or her initial submissions, the Court must take into account not only the application form but the entirety of his or her submissions in the course of the proceedings before it which may eliminate any initial omissions or obscurities (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 122 and 129, 20 March 2018).
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 76843/01

  NAZARENKO c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 7613/18

  Lastly, the Government contended that the second applicant's case was similar to Nazarenko v. Latvia (no. 76843/01, §§ 75-76, 1 February 2007).

• EGMR, 13.06.2023 - 4892/18

  H.A. ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Les requérants auraient pu introduire une nouvelle requête concernant ce grief conformément à l'article 47 du Règlement de la Cour (Vool et Toomik c. Estonie, nos 7613/18 et 12222/18, §§ 58-61, 29 mars 2022).