Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 24733/04, 6767/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,23477) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PFEIFER AND 1 OTHER CASE AGAINST BULGARIA
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PFEIFER ET 1 AUTRE AFFAIRE CONTRE LA BULGARIE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 10.11.2009 - 24733/04
- EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 24733/04
- EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 24733/04, 6767/04
- EGMR - 24733/04
Wird zitiert von ...
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29713/05
STAMOSE v. BULGARIA
In previous cases under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 the Court (or the former European Commission of Human Rights) has been concerned with such bans imposed in connection with pending criminal proceedings (see Schmid v. Austria, no. 10670/83, Commission decision of 9 July 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 44, p. 195; Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, ECHR 2001-V; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, ECHR 2006-XII; Sissanis v. Romania, no. 23468/02, 25 January 2007; Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, 21 October 2008; A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, 31 March 2009; Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 23530/02, 2 July 2009; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, 20 January 2011; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, 17 February 2011; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, 7 June 2011; and Miazdzyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, 24 January 2012), enforcement of criminal sentences (see M. v. Germany, no. 10307/83, Commission decision of 6 March 1984, DR 37, p. 113), lack of rehabilitation in respect of criminal offences (see Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, 10 February 2011), pending bankruptcy proceedings (see Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, ECHR 2003-IX), refusal to pay customs penalties (see Napijalo v. Croatia, no. 66485/01, 13 November 2003), failure to pay taxes (see Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, 23 May 2006), failure to pay judgment debts to private persons (see Ignatov v. Bulgaria, no. 50/02, 2 July 2009, and Gochev v. Bulgaria, no. 34383/03, 26 November 2009), knowledge of "State secrets" (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, ECHR 2006-XV), failure to comply with military-service obligations (see Peltonen v. Finland, no. 19583/92, Commission decision of 20 February 1995, DR 80-a, p. 38, and Marangos v. Cyprus, no. 31106/96, Commission decision of 20 May 1997, unreported), mental illness coupled with a lack of arrangements for appropriate care in the destination country (see Nordblad v. Sweden, no. 19076/91, Commission decision of 13 October 1993, unreported), and court orders prohibiting minor children from being removed to a foreign country (see Roldan Texeira and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 40655/98, 26 October 2000, and Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, 27 September 2011).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 10.11.2009 - 24733/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,67565) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PFEIFER v. BULGARIA
Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 10.11.2009 - 24733/04
- EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 24733/04
- EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 24733/04
- EGMR - 24733/04
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR - 24733/04 |
Anhängiges Verfahren
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 10.11.2009 - 24733/04
- EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 24733/04
- EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 24733/04
- EGMR - 24733/04 (anhängig)
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 24733/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,57035) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PFEIFER v. BULGARIA
Art. 13 MRK
Violation of P4-2 Violation of Art. 13 (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 10.11.2009 - 24733/04
- EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 24733/04
- EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 24733/04
- EGMR - 24733/04
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96
BAUMANN v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 24733/04
His case was therefore different from Gochev v. Bulgaria (no. 34383/03, 26 November 2009) and Baumann v. France (no. 33592/96, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)). - EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 34383/03
GOCHEV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 24733/04
His case was therefore different from Gochev v. Bulgaria (no. 34383/03, 26 November 2009) and Baumann v. France (no. 33592/96, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)). - EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 29871/96
ILETMIS v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 24733/04
However, having regard to the reasons for which it found a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, the Court does not consider it necessary to also examine the travel ban by reference to Article 8 (see Riener, § 134, and A.E. v. Poland, §§ 53 and 54, both cited above, and contrast Ä°letmis v. Turkey, no. 29871/96, §§ 42-50, ECHR 2005-XII, and PasaoÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 8932/03, §§ 41-48, 8 July 2008, where the Court examined prohibitions to travel abroad under Article 8 of the Convention and not under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 because the latter had been signed but not ratified by Turkey).
- EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 37509/06
BESSENYEI v. HUNGARY
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 24733/04
The travel ban imposed on the applicant clearly amounted to such a measure (see, mutatis mutandis, Schmidt v. Austria, no. 10670/83, Commission decision of 9 July 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 44, p. 195; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, § 33, ECHR 2006-XII; Sissanis v. Romania, no. 23468/02, § 64, 25 January 2007; Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, § 22, 21 October 2008; A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, § 47, 31 March 2009; and Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 23530/02, § 70, 2 July 2009). - EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14480/04
A.E. v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 24733/04
The travel ban imposed on the applicant clearly amounted to such a measure (see, mutatis mutandis, Schmidt v. Austria, no. 10670/83, Commission decision of 9 July 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 44, p. 195; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, § 33, ECHR 2006-XII; Sissanis v. Romania, no. 23468/02, § 64, 25 January 2007; Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, § 22, 21 October 2008; A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, § 47, 31 March 2009; and Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 23530/02, § 70, 2 July 2009). - EKMR, 09.07.1985 - 10670/83
SCHMID v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 24733/04
The travel ban imposed on the applicant clearly amounted to such a measure (see, mutatis mutandis, Schmidt v. Austria, no. 10670/83, Commission decision of 9 July 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 44, p. 195; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, § 33, ECHR 2006-XII; Sissanis v. Romania, no. 23468/02, § 64, 25 January 2007; Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, § 22, 21 October 2008; A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, § 47, 31 March 2009; and Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 23530/02, § 70, 2 July 2009). - EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81
LEANDER c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 24733/04
Given that in certain circumstances the aggregate of remedies provided by national law may satisfy the requirements of Article 13 (see Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 77, Series A no. 116, and Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, § 67, ECHR 2007-XI), the Court concludes that the applicant did have an effective remedy against that ban.
- EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 28975/05
KHLYUSTOV v. RUSSIA
The Court has examined the proportionality of travel restrictions which were imposed in various contexts: a travel ban imposed as a measure of police supervision of a person suspected of having connections with the Mafia (see Labita, cited above, §§ 193-197); the seizure, as part of the on-the-spot investigation, and subsequent confiscation of a passport of a person who was neither prosecuted nor considered to be a witness in the criminal proceedings (see Baumann, cited above, §§ 65-67); a prohibition on a bankrupt moving away from his place of residence for the duration of the bankruptcy proceedings (see Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, §§ 96-97, ECHR 2003-IX); the seizure of the applicant's passport for refusal to pay a fine for a customs offence (see Napijalo v. Croatia, no. 66485/01, §§ 78-82, 13 November 2003); an obligation not to abscond imposed on a suspect pending criminal proceedings against him (see, among many other examples, Fedorov and Fedorova v. Russia, no. 31008/02, §§ 39-47, 13 October 2005; Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, §§ 59-67, 22 November 2005; Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, §§ 90-97, 7 December 2006; Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, §§ 60-69, 10 July 2008; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, §§ 39-46, 20 January 2011; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, §§ 55-58, 17 February 2011; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, §§ 47-52, 7 June 2011; and Miazdzyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, §§ 33-42, 24 January 2012); travel restrictions imposed for refusal to pay a tax debt (see Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, §§ 118-130, 23 May 2006); travel restrictions imposed on account of knowledge of State secrets (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, §§ 44-52, ECHR 2006-XV, and Soltysyak v. Russia, no. 4663/05, §§ 46-54, 10 February 2011); court orders prohibiting minor children from being removed to a foreign country (see Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, §§ 214-215, 27 September 2011); and a travel ban imposed on account of a breach of the immigration rules of another country (see Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, §§ 33-37, 27 November 2012).