Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 17864/04, 21396/04 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KRASNOV ET SKOURATOV c. RUSSIE
Art. 14, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
Non-violation de P1-3 en ce qui concerne M. Krasnov Violation de P1-3 en ce qui concerne M. Skuratov Aucune question distincte au regard de l'art. 14 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Frais et dépens (procédure nationale) - demande rejetée Remboursement ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KRASNOV AND SKURATOV v. RUSSIA
Art. 14, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
No violation of P1-3 in respect of Mr Krasnov Violation of P1-3 in respect of Mr Skuratov No separate issue under Art. 14 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - ...
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 17864/04
- EGMR, 23.03.2006 - 17864/04
- EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 17864/04, 21396/04
Wird zitiert von ... (5) Neu Zitiert selbst (11)
- EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 25390/94
REKVÉNYI c. HONGRIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 17864/04
The lack of a clear legal basis for the domestic authorities' decisions calls for the conclusion by the Court that they did not meet the Convention standard of "lawfulness" and foreseeability of the impugned measure, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee the consequences which a given action may entail (see, among other authorities, Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-III). - EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 25144/94
Leyla Zana
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 17864/04
25144/94 et al., § 31, ECHR 2002-IV). - EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 55066/00
RUSSIAN CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF ENTREPRENEURS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 17864/04
Consequently, while it is true that States have a wide margin of appreciation when establishing eligibility conditions in the abstract, the principle that rights must be effective requires the finding that this or that candidate has failed to satisfy them to comply with a number of criteria framed to prevent arbitrary decisions (see Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v. Russia, nos. 55066/00 and 55638/00, § 50, 11 January 2007; Podkolzina, cited above, § 35; and Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 59, ECHR 2004-X).
- EKMR, 01.07.1996 - 28443/95
MONTION contre la FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 17864/04
Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been invoked both on its own and together with Article 14, and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, it is not generally necessary for the Court to consider the case under Article 14 also, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III, and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, § 67). - EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 72881/01
BRANCHE DE MOSCOU DE L'ARMEE DU SALUT c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 17864/04
In these circumstances, it was the domestic authorities' task to elucidate the applicable legal requirements and thus give the second applicant clear notice how to prepare the documents (see, mutatis mutandis, The Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 90, ECHR 2006-..., and Tsonev v. Bulgaria, no. 45963/99, § 55, 13 April 2006). - EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76
DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 17864/04
Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been invoked both on its own and together with Article 14, and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, it is not generally necessary for the Court to consider the case under Article 14 also, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III, and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, § 67). - EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94
CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 17864/04
Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been invoked both on its own and together with Article 14, and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, it is not generally necessary for the Court to consider the case under Article 14 also, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III, and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, § 67). - EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81
MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 17864/04
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 enshrines a fundamental principle for effective political democracy, and is accordingly of prime importance in the Convention system (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, p. 22, § 47). - EGMR, 13.04.2006 - 45963/99
TSONEV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 17864/04
In these circumstances, it was the domestic authorities' task to elucidate the applicable legal requirements and thus give the second applicant clear notice how to prepare the documents (see, mutatis mutandis, The Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 90, ECHR 2006-..., and Tsonev v. Bulgaria, no. 45963/99, § 55, 13 April 2006). - EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 17707/02
MELNITCHENKO c. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 17864/04
Consequently, while it is true that States have a wide margin of appreciation when establishing eligibility conditions in the abstract, the principle that rights must be effective requires the finding that this or that candidate has failed to satisfy them to comply with a number of criteria framed to prevent arbitrary decisions (see Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v. Russia, nos. 55066/00 and 55638/00, § 50, 11 January 2007; Podkolzina, cited above, § 35; and Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 59, ECHR 2004-X). - EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 46726/99
PODKOLZINA c. LETTONIE
- EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 28881/07
ORAN c. TURQUIE
L'exclusion de groupes ou catégories quelconques de la population doit en conséquence se concilier avec les principes sous-tendant l'article 3 du Protocole no 1 (Soukhovetski c. Ukraine, no 13716/02, § 52, CEDH 2006-VI, Parti conservateur russe des entrepreneurs et autres c. Russie, nos 55066/00 et 55638/00, § 49, 11 janvier 2007, Krasnov et Skouratov c. Russie, nos 17864/04 et 21396/04, § 41, 19 juillet 2007, et Kovatch c. Ukraine, no 39424/02, § 50, CEDH 2008). - EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 77568/01
PETKOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
Sur ce point, la Cour observe qu'elle a toujours souligné la nécessité d'éviter les décisions arbitraires et les abus de pouvoir en matière électorale spécialement en ce concerne l'enregistrement des candidats (voir Podkolzina c. Lettonie, no 46726/99, § 35, CEDH 2002-II ; Melnitchenko c. Ukraine, no 17707/02, § 59, CEDH 2004-X ; Krasnov et Skouratov c. Russie, nos 17864/04 et 21396/04, § 42, CEDH 2007-IX ; voir également Lykourezos c. Grèce, no 33554/03, § 56 in fine, CEDH 2006-VIII ; Kovatch c. Ukraine, no 39424/02, § 54, CEDH 2008-... ; Sarukhanyan c. Arménie, no 38978/03, § 40, 27 mai 2008 ; et Ä€damsons, précité, §§ 111 e) et 117-119). - EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 58811/18
GÜNGEN c. TÜRKIYE
Dans ce contexte, la Cour relève que, bien que le requérant ait présenté une décision de justice indiquant que la privation de ses droits civiques était levée spontanément à la suite de l'exécution intégrale de sa peine au sens de l'article 53 du code pénal, le CES, se fondant sur l'article 13/A de la loi no 5253, a jugé que la décision du tribunal présentée par l'intéressé n'était pas de nature à attester que ses droits civiques lui avaient été restitués (comparer avec, Krasnov et Skouratov c. Russie, nos 17864/04 et 21396/04, §§ 61 et 64, 19 juillet 2007). - EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 17313/13
BILOTSERKIVSKA v. UKRAINE
It follows that the refusal of the applicant's candidacy was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (compare Krasnov and Skuratov v. Russia, nos. 17864/04 and 21396/04, §§ 65-66, 19 July 2007). - EGMR, 28.02.2008 - 60983/00
ZHERMAL c. RUSSIE
Eu égard aux considérations qui précèdent, la Cour conclut qu'à l'époque des faits, les élections du gouverneur de la région de Sakhaline tombaient sous le coup de l'article 3 du Protocole no 1 (cf., a contrario, Cherepkov c. Russie (déc.), no 51501/99, CEDH 2000-I concernant l'élection au poste de maire de la ville de Vladivostok, ainsi que Krasnov et Skuratov c. Russie (déc.), nos 17864/04 et 21396/04, 14 décembre 2004 au sujet du grief relatif à l'élection au poste de maire de la ville de Moscou).
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 17864/04, 21396/04 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KRASNOV and SKURATOV v. RUSSIA
Art. 6, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 17864/04, 21396/04
- EGMR, 23.03.2006 - 17864/04
- EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 17864/04
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 17864/04
(b) Insofar as the second applicant also relied on Article 13 of the Convention, the Court recalls that Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 23.03.2006 - 17864/04, 21396/04 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KRASNOV v. RUSSIA
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3, Art. 14 MRK
Admissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 17864/04
- EGMR, 23.03.2006 - 17864/04, 21396/04
- EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 17864/04