Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NIEDZWIEDZ v. POLAND

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2008 - 1345/06

  The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 32, §§ 69 et seq.; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, p. 846, § 36; and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 31981/96

  HILBE contre le LIECHTENSTEIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2008 - 1345/06

  In so far as the applicant complained that he could not vote in the 2000 presidential elections and the 2003 referendum on accession to the EU, the Court reiterates that the obligations imposed on the Contracting States by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 are limited to "the choice of legislature" and do not apply to the election of a Head of State (see Habsburg-Lothringen v. Austria, no. 15344/89, Commission decision of 14 December 1989, DR 64, p. 211; Baskauskaite v. Lithuania, no. 41090/98, Commission decision of 21 October 1998; Guliyev v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 35584/02, 27 May 2004, and Boskoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 11676/04, 2 September 2004) or to referendums (see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI, and Borghi v. Italy (dec.), no. 54767/00, 20 June 2002).
• EKMR, 14.12.1989 - 15344/89

  Carl Ludwig Habsburg-Lothringen

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2008 - 1345/06

  In so far as the applicant complained that he could not vote in the 2000 presidential elections and the 2003 referendum on accession to the EU, the Court reiterates that the obligations imposed on the Contracting States by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 are limited to "the choice of legislature" and do not apply to the election of a Head of State (see Habsburg-Lothringen v. Austria, no. 15344/89, Commission decision of 14 December 1989, DR 64, p. 211; Baskauskaite v. Lithuania, no. 41090/98, Commission decision of 21 October 1998; Guliyev v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 35584/02, 27 May 2004, and Boskoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 11676/04, 2 September 2004) or to referendums (see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI, and Borghi v. Italy (dec.), no. 54767/00, 20 June 2002).

• EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 35584/02

  GULIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2008 - 1345/06

  In so far as the applicant complained that he could not vote in the 2000 presidential elections and the 2003 referendum on accession to the EU, the Court reiterates that the obligations imposed on the Contracting States by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 are limited to "the choice of legislature" and do not apply to the election of a Head of State (see Habsburg-Lothringen v. Austria, no. 15344/89, Commission decision of 14 December 1989, DR 64, p. 211; Baskauskaite v. Lithuania, no. 41090/98, Commission decision of 21 October 1998; Guliyev v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 35584/02, 27 May 2004, and Boskoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 11676/04, 2 September 2004) or to referendums (see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI, and Borghi v. Italy (dec.), no. 54767/00, 20 June 2002).
• EGMR, 10.05.2005 - 6569/04

  ARRIGO AND VELLA v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2008 - 1345/06

  Furthermore, an applicant may lose his victim status even when the authorities provide no pecuniary award for a breach of his Convention rights (see Arrigo and Vella v. Malta (dec.), no. 6569/04, 10 May 2005 in the context of an alleged breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence).
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 54767/00

  BORGHI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2008 - 1345/06

  In so far as the applicant complained that he could not vote in the 2000 presidential elections and the 2003 referendum on accession to the EU, the Court reiterates that the obligations imposed on the Contracting States by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 are limited to "the choice of legislature" and do not apply to the election of a Head of State (see Habsburg-Lothringen v. Austria, no. 15344/89, Commission decision of 14 December 1989, DR 64, p. 211; Baskauskaite v. Lithuania, no. 41090/98, Commission decision of 21 October 1998; Guliyev v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 35584/02, 27 May 2004, and Boskoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 11676/04, 2 September 2004) or to referendums (see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI, and Borghi v. Italy (dec.), no. 54767/00, 20 June 2002).
• EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 11676/04

  BOSKOSKI c. " L'EX-REPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACEDOINE "

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2008 - 1345/06

  In so far as the applicant complained that he could not vote in the 2000 presidential elections and the 2003 referendum on accession to the EU, the Court reiterates that the obligations imposed on the Contracting States by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 are limited to "the choice of legislature" and do not apply to the election of a Head of State (see Habsburg-Lothringen v. Austria, no. 15344/89, Commission decision of 14 December 1989, DR 64, p. 211; Baskauskaite v. Lithuania, no. 41090/98, Commission decision of 21 October 1998; Guliyev v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 35584/02, 27 May 2004, and Boskoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 11676/04, 2 September 2004) or to referendums (see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI, and Borghi v. Italy (dec.), no. 54767/00, 20 June 2002).
• EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 35242/04

  M.A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2008 - 1345/06

  The Court reiterates that the nature of the redress will depend on the circumstances of the case (see M.A. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35242/04, ECHR 2005-...).
• EKMR, 21.10.1998 - 41090/98

  BASKAUSKAITE v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2008 - 1345/06

  In so far as the applicant complained that he could not vote in the 2000 presidential elections and the 2003 referendum on accession to the EU, the Court reiterates that the obligations imposed on the Contracting States by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 are limited to "the choice of legislature" and do not apply to the election of a Head of State (see Habsburg-Lothringen v. Austria, no. 15344/89, Commission decision of 14 December 1989, DR 64, p. 211; Baskauskaite v. Lithuania, no. 41090/98, Commission decision of 21 October 1998; Guliyev v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 35584/02, 27 May 2004, and Boskoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 11676/04, 2 September 2004) or to referendums (see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI, and Borghi v. Italy (dec.), no. 54767/00, 20 June 2002).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 11157/04

  ANCHUGOV v. RUSSIA

  However, as regards the election of the Russian President, the Court reiterates that the obligations imposed on the Contracting States by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 do not apply to the election of a Head of State (see Baskauskaite v. Lithuania, no. 41090/98, Commission decision of 21 October 1998; Guliyev v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 35584/02, 27 May 2004; Boskoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 11676/04, 2 September 2004; Niedźwiedź v. Poland (dec.), no. 1345/06, 11 March 2008; Paksas, cited above, § 72; and Krivobokov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 38707/04, 19 February 2013).
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 36921/07

  MIROSLAW GARLICKI v. POLAND

  As to the redress which is appropriate and sufficient to remedy a breach of a Convention right at the national level, the Court has generally considered this to be dependent on all the circumstances of the case, having regard, in particular, to the nature of the Convention violation at issue (see, amongst other authorities, Scordino (no. 1), cited above, § 186; Niedźwiedź v. Poland (dec.), 1345/06, 11 March 2008; and Gäfgen [GC], cited above, § 116).
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 22962/15

  MOOHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  c. Lettonie, no 14755/03, 24 janvier 2008, Niedzwiedz c. Pologne (déc.), no 1345/06, 11 mars 2008, et McLean et Cole, décision précitée, § 32).
• EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 48818/17

  CUMHURIYET HALK PARTISI v. TURKEY

  35790/97 and 38438/97, Commission decision of 14 September 1998, Decisions and Reports 94, p. 102; Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI; Borghi v. Italy (dec.), no. 54767/00, ECHR 2002-V (extracts)); Z. v. Latvia (dec.), no. 14755/03, 26 January 2006; Niedzwiedz v. Poland (dec.), no. 1345/06, 11 March 2008; McLean and Cole v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 62321/13

  MARZECKI v. POLAND

  The nature of the redress which is appropriate and sufficient to remedy a breach of a Convention right at the national level will depend on the circumstances of the case, having regard, in particular, to the nature of the Convention violation at issue (see M.A. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35242/04, ECHR 2005 VIII; Niedźwiedź v. Poland (dec.), 1345/06, 11 March 2008; and Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 116, ECHR 2010 ).