Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  UNITED CIVIL AVIATION TRADE UNION AND CSORBA v. HUNGARY

  Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly) (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  LÉGIKÖZLEKEDÉSI EGYESÜLT SZAKSZERVEZET AND CSORBA v. HUNGARY

  Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 41479/10

  BUDAHÁZY v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 27585/13

  However, where demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence, it is important for public authorities to show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 is not to be deprived of all substance (see Nurettin Aldemir and Others v. Turkey, nos. 32124/02 and 6 others, § 43, 18 December 2007, and Budaházy v. Hungary, no. 41479/10, § 34, 15 December 2015).

  In the context of demonstrations the Court has held that the domestic authorities were best placed to evaluate the security risks and those of disturbance as well as the appropriate measures dictated by the risk assumption (see Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 42, 24 July 2012), and that the Court could not question the national courts" assessment, unless it was manifestly unreasonable or there was clear evidence of arbitrariness (see Budaházy v. Hungary, no. 41479/10, § 40, 15 December 2015, with reference to Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 89, ECHR 2007-I).

• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 17391/06

  PRIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 27585/13

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that since overcrowding during a public event is fraught with danger, it is not uncommon for State authorities in various countries to impose restrictions on the location, date, time, form or manner of conduct of a planned public gathering (see Primov and Others v. Russia, no. 17391/06, § 130, 12 June 2014).

  Since overcrowding during a public event is fraught with danger, it is not uncommon for State authorities to impose restrictions on the location, date, time, form or manner of conduct of a planned public gathering (see Primov and Others v. Russia, no. 17391/06, § 130, 12 June 2014).

• EGMR, 05.04.2016 - 7871/10

  KÖRTVÉLYESSY v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 27585/13

  In this respect the Court refers at the outset to the principles set out in paragraphs 142 to 160 of the judgment Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania ([GC], no. 37553/05, ECHR 2015, see also Körtvélyessy v. Hungary, no. 7871/10, §§ 24-27, 5 April 2016).

  In Bukta and Others v. Hungary (no. 25691/04, § 45, 17 July 2007), Patyi and Others v. Hungary, no. 5529/05, § 53, 7 October 2008), Sáska v. Hungary (no. 58050/08, § 27, 27 November 2012), Körtvélyessy v. Hungary (no. 7871/10, § 36, 5 April 2016), Körtvélyessy v. Hungary (no. 2) (no. 58271/15, § 27, 18 July 2017) and Körtvélyessy v. Hungary (no. 3) (no. 58274/15, § 26, 3 October 2017) the Court considered that the finding of a violation of Article 11 of the Convention constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage the applicants might have suffered.

 
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08

  FÁBER v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 27585/13

  In the context of demonstrations the Court has held that the domestic authorities were best placed to evaluate the security risks and those of disturbance as well as the appropriate measures dictated by the risk assumption (see Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 42, 24 July 2012), and that the Court could not question the national courts" assessment, unless it was manifestly unreasonable or there was clear evidence of arbitrariness (see Budaházy v. Hungary, no. 41479/10, § 40, 15 December 2015, with reference to Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 89, ECHR 2007-I).
• EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 31684/05

  BARRACO c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 27585/13

  The Contracting States enjoy a certain, albeit not unlimited margin of appreciation when examining whether restrictions on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention can be considered necessary (see Barraco v. France, no. 31684/05, § 42, 5 March 2009).
• EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 10346/05

  EVA MOLNÁR c. HONGRIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 27585/13

  In this respect, it has held that restrictions on freedom of peaceful assembly in public places may serve to protect the rights of others with a view to preventing disorder and maintaining an orderly flow of traffic (see Éva Molnár v. Hungary, no. 10346/05, § 34, 7 October 2008).

• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 29356/19

  PLESHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  It considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage the applicants may have suffered (see United Civil Aviation Trade Union and Csorba v. Hungary, no. 27585/13, § 35, 22 May 2018, and the cases cited therein; see also, mutatis mutandis, Alekseyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, § 29, 27 November 2018).