Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANCHUGOV AND GLADKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-general (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Vote) Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient ...

Besprechungen u.ä.

• verfassungsblog.de (Kurzaufsatz mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

  Russland, der EGMR und das Wahlrecht für Strafgefangene

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ANCHUGOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 11157/04, 15162/05
• EGMR, 25.09.2019 - 11157/04

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 11157/04

  The Court reiterates that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees subjective rights, including the right to vote and to stand for election (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, §§ 46-51, Series A no. 113).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 11157/04

  The Court has repeatedly affirmed that the margin in this area is wide (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, § 52; Matthews [GC], cited above, § 63; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV; and Podkolzina, cited above, § 33).
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 11157/04

  It reiterates in this connection that since the scope of its jurisdiction is determined by the Convention itself, in particular by Article 32, and not by the parties" submissions in a particular case, the mere absence of a plea of incompatibility cannot extend that jurisdiction (see, mutatis mutandis, Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-...).

 
• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

  Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 11157/04

  That provision makes no distinction as to the type of rule or measure concerned and does not exclude any part of the member States" "jurisdiction" from scrutiny under the Convention (see Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, § 153, ECHR 2005 VI; Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, § 128, ECHR 2010 (extracts); and Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 168, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 4260/04

  ANDRUSHKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 11157/04

  The date of introduction is accordingly the date on which the first letter was written by the applicant or, where there is an undue delay between this date and the date on which the letter was posted, the Court may decide that the date of posting shall be considered to be the date of introduction (see Gaspari v. Slovenia, no. 21055/03, § 35, 21 July 2009; Calleja v. Malta (dec.), no. 75274/01, 18 March 2004; Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, ECHR 2002-X (extracts); and Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 32, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 60041/08

  GREENS ET M.T. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 11157/04

  The Court reiterates that where the Government claim non-exhaustion they must satisfy the Court that the remedy proposed was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08, § 66, ECHR 2010 (extracts), with further references).
• EGMR, 21.11.2002 - 36747/02

  ARSLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 11157/04

  The date of introduction is accordingly the date on which the first letter was written by the applicant or, where there is an undue delay between this date and the date on which the letter was posted, the Court may decide that the date of posting shall be considered to be the date of introduction (see Gaspari v. Slovenia, no. 21055/03, § 35, 21 July 2009; Calleja v. Malta (dec.), no. 75274/01, 18 March 2004; Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, ECHR 2002-X (extracts); and Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 32, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88

  OPEN DOOR AND DUBLIN WELL WOMAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 11157/04

  Furthermore, in accordance with Article 19 of the Convention, the Court's duty is "to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties..." (see Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 29 October 1992, § 69, Series A no. 246 A).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 76573/01

  DENNIS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 11157/04

  Where no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of the knowledge of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Dennis and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76573/01, 2 July 2002).
• EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 46726/99

  PODKOLZINA c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 11157/04

  As regards the aim of the alleged interference, the Government pointed out that, according to the Court's case-law, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 did not, like other provisions of the Convention, specify or limit the aims which a restriction must pursue, and a wide range of purposes may therefore be compatible with that Article (see, for instance, Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 34, ECHR 2002-II).

• BVerfG, 29.01.2019 - 2 BvC 62/14

  Wahlrechtsausschlüsse für Betreute in allen Angelegenheiten und wegen …

  Werde allen Strafgefangenen unterschiedslos das Wahlrecht entzogen, stelle dies eine allgemeine, automatische und wahllose Einschränkung des Wahlrechts dar, die den Gestaltungsspielraum der Vertragsstaaten überschreite und daher mit Art. 3 EMRKZusProt nicht vereinbar sei (vgl. EGMR , Hirst v. The United Kingdom , Urteil vom 6. Oktober 2005, Nr. 74025/01, § 82; s. auch EGMR, Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, Urteil vom 4. Juli 2013, Nr. 11157/04 und 15162/05, §§ 93 ff.).
• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 18766/11

  Italien muß Rechtsrahmen für gleichgeschlechtliche Lebensgemeinschaft schaffen

  95. In its caselaw the Court has considered that there were "continuing situations" bringing the case within its competence with regard to Article 35 § 1, where a legal provision gave rise to a permanent state of affairs, in the form of a permanent limitation on an individual Conventionprotected right, such as the right to vote or to stand for election (see Paksas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 34932/04, § 83, 6 January 2011, and Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, § 77, 4 July 2013) or the right of access to court (see Nataliya Mikhaylenko v. Ukraine, no. 49069/11, § 25, 30 May 2013), or in the form of a legislative provision which intrudes OLIARI AND OTHERS v. ITALY JUDGMENT 23.

  97. In the instant case, in the absence of an effective domestic remedy given the state of domestic caselaw, and the fact that the state of affairs complained of has clearly not ceased, the situation must be considered as a continuing one (see, for example, Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, § 77, 4 July 2013, albeit a different line had been taken previously in British cases concerning similar circumstances, see Toner v. The United Kingdom (dec.), § 29, no. 8195/08, 15 February 2011, and Mclean and Cole v. The United Kingdom (dec.), § 25, 11 June 2013).

• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12

  Ungarn verstößt gegen Menschenrechtskonvention

  11157/04 and 15162/05, § 50, 4 July 2013; Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos.

 
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 5809/08

  AL-DULIMI AND MONTANA MANAGEMENT INC. v. SWITZERLAND

  11157/04 and 15162/05, § 50, 4 July 2013; Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 22962/15

  MOOHAN ET GILLON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Pour Lord Hodge, le fait que le référendum sur l'indépendance concernait une décision politique très importante n'entrait pas en ligne de compte, car selon lui, si l'importance politique constituait un critère permettant de déterminer qu'une affaire relevait de l'article 3 du Protocole no 1, 1a Cour n'aurait pas jugé que l'élection du président de la Fédération de Russie sortait du champ d'application de cette disposition (Anchugov et Gladkov c. Russie, nos 11157/04 et 15162/05, §§ 54-55, 4 juillet 2013).
• EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 48099/08

  RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  11157/04 and 15162/05, § 73, 4 July 2013).
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 54446/07

  ISAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  11157/04 and 15162/05, 4 July 2013; Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, nos.