Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 2476/02 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
THÉVENON c. FRANCE
Art. 34, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 MRK
Radiation du rôle (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
THÉVENON v. FRANCE
Art. 34, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 MRK
Struck out of the list (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (52) Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 48335/99
SANLES SANLES contre l'ESPAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 2476/02
It had thus found in Sanles Sanles v. Spain ((dec.), no. 48335/99, ECHR 2000-XI) that the applicant was not entitled to rely, on behalf of the deceased person, on rights under Articles 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 14 of the Convention, as those rights belonged to the category of non-transferable rights. - EGMR, 08.03.2005 - 24790/04
FAIRFIELD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 2476/02
In a similar case where the applicants had lodged an application after the death of the victim (see Fairfield and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24790/04, ECHR 2005-VI), the Court reiterated that the existence of a victim who was personally affected by an alleged violation of a Convention right was indispensable for putting the protection mechanism of the Convention into motion, although this criterion was not to be applied in a rigid and inflexible way. - EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 55929/00
MARIE-LOUISE LOYEN ET AUTRE c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 2476/02
She referred in particular to Marie-Louise Loyen and Bruneel v. France (no. 55929/00, 5 July 2005), in which a wife and daughter had been authorised to pursue the proceedings brought by their husband and father before his death.
- EGMR, 31.03.1992 - 18020/91
X c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 2476/02
The Court points out that, in a number of cases where the applicant has died during the proceedings, it has taken into account the intention of heirs or close relatives to pursue those proceedings (see, for example, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 37-38, Series A no. 35; X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 32, Series A no. 46; Vocaturo v. Italy, 24 May 1991, § 2, Series A no. 206-C; G. v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 228-F; Pandolfelli and Palumbo v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 231-B; X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 26, Series A no. 234-C; Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 2, Series A no. 281-A; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; and contrast Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287). - EGMR, 25.03.1994 - 17116/90
SCHERER v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 2476/02
The Court points out that, in a number of cases where the applicant has died during the proceedings, it has taken into account the intention of heirs or close relatives to pursue those proceedings (see, for example, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 37-38, Series A no. 35; X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 32, Series A no. 46; Vocaturo v. Italy, 24 May 1991, § 2, Series A no. 206-C; G. v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 228-F; Pandolfelli and Palumbo v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 231-B; X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 26, Series A no. 234-C; Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 2, Series A no. 281-A; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; and contrast Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287). - EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75
X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 2476/02
The Court points out that, in a number of cases where the applicant has died during the proceedings, it has taken into account the intention of heirs or close relatives to pursue those proceedings (see, for example, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 37-38, Series A no. 35; X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 32, Series A no. 46; Vocaturo v. Italy, 24 May 1991, § 2, Series A no. 206-C; G. v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 228-F; Pandolfelli and Palumbo v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 231-B; X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 26, Series A no. 234-C; Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 2, Series A no. 281-A; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; and contrast Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287). - EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87
RAIMONDO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 2476/02
The Court points out that, in a number of cases where the applicant has died during the proceedings, it has taken into account the intention of heirs or close relatives to pursue those proceedings (see, for example, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 37-38, Series A no. 35; X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 32, Series A no. 46; Vocaturo v. Italy, 24 May 1991, § 2, Series A no. 206-C; G. v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 228-F; Pandolfelli and Palumbo v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 231-B; X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 26, Series A no. 234-C; Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 2, Series A no. 281-A; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; and contrast Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287). - EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75
DEWEER c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 2476/02
The Court points out that, in a number of cases where the applicant has died during the proceedings, it has taken into account the intention of heirs or close relatives to pursue those proceedings (see, for example, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 37-38, Series A no. 35; X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 32, Series A no. 46; Vocaturo v. Italy, 24 May 1991, § 2, Series A no. 206-C; G. v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 228-F; Pandolfelli and Palumbo v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 231-B; X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 26, Series A no. 234-C; Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 2, Series A no. 281-A; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; and contrast Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287). - EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94
Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 2476/02
She also referred to Elsholz v. Germany ([GC], no. 25735/94, § 43, ECHR 2000-VIII), in which the Court had reiterated that the notion of family was not confined to marriage-based relationships.
- EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 27765/09
Italiens Flüchtlingspolitik: Rechte auch auf hoher See
It points out that the practice of the Court is to strike applications out of the list when an applicant dies during the course of the proceedings and no heir or close relative wishes to pursue the case (see, among other authorities, Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission Report of 14 January 1997, § 15; Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III; and Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 44, 30 March 2009). - EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08
CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
Dans des cas où le requérant était décédé après l'introduction de la requête, la Cour a admis qu'un proche parent ou un héritier pouvait en principe poursuivre la procédure dès lors qu'il avait un intérêt suffisant dans l'affaire (par exemple la veuve et les enfants dans Raimondo c. Italie, 22 février 1994, § 2, série A no 281-A, et Stojkovic c. « l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine ", no 14818/02, § 25, 8 novembre 2007 ; les parents dans X c. France, 31 mars 1992, § 26, série A no 234-C ; le neveu et l'héritier potentiel dans Malhous c. République tchèque (déc.) [GC], no 33071/96, CEDH 2000-XII ; ou la compagne non mariée ou de facto dans Velikova c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 41488/98, CEDH 1999-V ; a contrario, la légataire universelle sans lien familial avec le défunt dans Thevenon c. France (déc.), no 2476/02, CEDH 2006-III ; la nièce dans Léger c. France (radiation) [GC], no 19324/02, § 50, 30 mars 2009 ; et la fille de l'un des requérants initiaux dans une affaire relative à des droits - non transférables - découlant des articles 3 et 8 et où aucun intérêt général n'était en jeu, M.P. et autres c. Bulgarie, no 22457/08, §§ 96-100, 15 novembre 2011). - EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11
HRISTOZOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
Conversely, the Court and the former Commission have struck applications out of their lists in situations where the applicants have died in the course of the proceedings and either no one has come forward with a wish to pursue the application (see, for example, Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission's report of 14 January 1997, unreported, § 15; Ibish v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 29893/06, 31 January 2011; and Korzhenevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 36799/05, 28 June 2011), or the persons who have expressed such a wish are not heirs or sufficiently close relatives of the applicants, and cannot demonstrate that they have any other legitimate interest in pursuing the application (see Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; S.G. v. France (striking out), no. 40669/98, §§ 6 and 16, 18 September 2001; Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III; Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, §§ 47-51, 30 March 2009; Mitev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 42758/07, 29 June 2010; and Yanchev v. Bulgaria (dec.) [Committee], no. 16403/07, 20 March 2012).
- EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 41069/12
TABBANE c. SUISSE
Dans des cas où le requérant était décédé après l'introduction de la requête, la Cour a admis qu'un proche parent ou un héritier pouvait en principe poursuivre la procédure dès lors qu'il avait un intérêt suffisant dans l'affaire (par exemple la veuve et les enfants dans Raimondo c. Italie, 22 février 1994, § 2, série A no 281-A ; et Stojkovic c. « l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine ", no 14818/02, § 25, 8 novembre 2007 ; les parents dans X c. France, 31 mars 1992, § 26, série A no 234-C ; le neveu et l'héritier potentiel dans Malhous c. République tchèque (déc.) [GC], no 33071/96, CEDH 2000-XII ; ou la compagne non mariée ou de facto dans Velikova c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 41488/98, CEDH 1999-V ; a contrario, la légataire universelle sans lien familial avec le défunt dans Thevenon c. France (déc.), no 2476/02, CEDH 2006-III ; la nièce dans Léger c. France (radiation) [GC], no 19324/02, § 50, 30 mars 2009 ; et la fille de l'un des requérants initiaux dans une affaire relative à des droits - non transférables - découlant des articles 3 et 8 et où aucun intérêt général n'était en jeu, M.P. et autres c. Bulgarie, no 22457/08, §§ 96-100, 15 novembre 2011). - EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 67336/01
DANILENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Court reiterates that it has been its practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed a wish to pursue the application (see Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, § 31, Series A no. 287; Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 23, ECHR 2003-IX; and Thevenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-...). - EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
Léger ./. Frankreich
On the other hand, it has been the Court's practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue an application (see, among other authorities, Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission's report of 14 January 1997, § 15; and Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III). - EGMR, 25.10.2018 - 37646/13
DELECOLLE c. FRANCE
Si M.S. se prévaut de la qualité de légataire universelle du requérant, la Cour a déjà jugé que cette seule qualité ne conférait pas de droit à voir l'instance perdurer (Thévenon c. France (déc.), no 2476/02, CEDH 2006-III). - EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 3179/05
GAKIYEV AND GAKIYEVA v. RUSSIA
It reiterates that certain Convention rights - for instance, the rights bestowed in Article 8 - belong to the category of non-transferable rights (see Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, 28 February 2006) and considers that the right to vote, which is closely linked to one's person owing to its very nature, should be included in this category. - EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 3289/10
BURLYA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
However, this in itself is not decisive as long as they can lay a claim to be their next of kin (contrast Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII - where the Court accepted that a relative who had not finalised his status as a heir nevertheless had such standing - with Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III, - where it did not recognise the locus standi of an individual who was not the applicant's relative, even though he was his friend and universal legatee). - EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 49756/09
YÜKSEL c. TURQUIE
A cet égard, la Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence (voir, entre autres, Thévenon c. France (déc.), no 2476/02, CEDH 2006-III, Stankevich c. Ukraine (déc.), no 48814/07, 26 mai 2009, Mitev c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 42758/07, 29 juin 2010, et, plus récemment, Iordanovi c. Bulgarie, no 10907/04, §§ 87-89, 27 janvier 2011) selon laquelle les droits énoncés aux articles 5 et 8 de la Convention sont éminemment personnels et non transférables. - EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
KORYAK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08
IVKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 22457/08
M.P. AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 42430/05
AIZPURUA ORTIZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 39480/03
DIMITRIE DAN POPESCU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 26198/13
STEFANOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 15028/04
BRUZTTIS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 41064/05
HADZHIGEORGIEVI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 67125/01
PREZIOSI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 41917/06
ROZYYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 70465/12
PAIS PIRES DE LIMA c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 22369/14
ABDO ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 29414/09
CIORCAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 23944/04
EREMIÁSOVÁ AND PECHOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 03.01.2013 - 33347/07
GROBIN v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 28529/04
SC PLACEBO CONSULT SRL c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 11571/04
TODOROV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 37542/05
ABAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.02.2021 - 30640/09
MAMMADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 22783/13
PATITUCCI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 7001/06
BABIY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 37916/03
SICILIANO ET GAGLIARDI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 31442/08
ZHELNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 34931/08
DOBRZYNSKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 16403/07
YANCHEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 60212/08
YILDIZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 16.11.2010 - 30608/02
MOISA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 29.06.2010 - 42758/07
Stanev ./. Bulgarien - /
- EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 8702/04
VAARI v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 47306/11
LE PARTI L'ALLIANCE SOCIALISTE c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 43302/08
BERIA v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 30795/12
VASCENKOVS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 25085/05
CHIYANOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 47732/06
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF ROMANIAN JUDGES AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 35519/04
DELLA PIETRA v. ITALY
- EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 44103/06
SABO v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17151/06
VOLOSNOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 6008/10
BATANOVIC v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 33093/04
PETRONIO v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 33264/03
YAKOVLEV v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 55098/10
ZVEREVY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 16510/06
ANGELOV AND ANGELOVA v. BULGARIA