Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 02.02.2017

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12, 36847/12, 11252/13, 12317/13, 43746/14   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,37343
EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12, 36847/12, 11252/13, 12317/13, 43746/14 (https://dejure.org/2018,37343)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15.11.2018 - 29580/12, 36847/12, 11252/13, 12317/13, 43746/14 (https://dejure.org/2018,37343)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15. November 2018 - 29580/12, 36847/12, 11252/13, 12317/13, 43746/14 (https://dejure.org/2018,37343)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,37343) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA

    Preliminary objections dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    NAVALNYY c. RUSSIE

    Exceptions préliminaires rejetées (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité;(Art. 35-1) Épuisement des voies de recours internes;Exception préliminaire rejetée (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité;(Art. 35-1) Épuisement des voies de recours internes;Exception ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

    [DEU] Preliminary objections dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) ...

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (4)

  • lto.de (Kurzinformation)

    Verhaftungen des Kremlkritikers Nawalny: Russland verletzt "politisch motiviert" Menschenrechte

  • archive.fo (Pressebericht, 15.11.2018)

    Russland muss Nawalny entschädigen

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Pressemitteilung)

    Grand Chamber judgment Navalnyy v. Russia - violation of opposition figure's rights

  • taz.de (Pressebericht, 15.11.2018)

    Nawalny-Demos auch ohne Erlaubnis

In Nachschlagewerken

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • NVwZ-RR 2019, 793
 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (40)

  • EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 25691/04

    BUKTA ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12
    It is not, in principle, contrary to the spirit of Article 11 if, for reasons of public order and national security a High Contracting Party requires that the holding of meetings be subject to authorisation (see Oya Ataman, cited above, § 37; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 35, ECHR 2007-III; Balçik and Others v. Turkey, no. 25/02, § 49, 29 November 2007; Nurettin Aldemir and Others v. Turkey, nos.

    It appears that the nuisance caused by the applicant and his fellow protestors caused a certain disruption to ordinary life but did not in the concrete circumstances exceed that level of minor disturbance that follows from normal exercise of the right of peaceful assembly in a public place (see Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 47, 24 July 2012; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 37, ECHR 2007-III; cf. Kudrevicius and Others, cited above, §§ 149, 164-75).

  • EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

    MAESTRI c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12
    The Court reiterates its case-law to the effect that the expressions "prescribed by law" and "in accordance with the law" in Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention not only requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, among other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, § 52, ECHR 2001-VI; Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 39, ECHR 2002-II; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; Vyerentsov, cited above, § 52; Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, §§ 64-65, ECHR 2004-I; and Sindicatul "Pastorul cel Bun" v. Romania [GC], no. 2330/09, § 153, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).

    Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion and the manner of its exercise (see, among other authorities, Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 84, ECHR 2000-XI; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; and Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 411).

  • EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 44158/98

    GORZELIK AND OTHERS v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12
    The Court reiterates its case-law to the effect that the expressions "prescribed by law" and "in accordance with the law" in Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention not only requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, among other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, § 52, ECHR 2001-VI; Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 39, ECHR 2002-II; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; Vyerentsov, cited above, § 52; Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, §§ 64-65, ECHR 2004-I; and Sindicatul "Pastorul cel Bun" v. Romania [GC], no. 2330/09, § 153, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).

    Although individual interests must on occasion be subordinated to those of a group, democracy does not simply mean that the views of a majority must always prevail: a balance must be achieved which ensures the fair and proper treatment of people from minorities and avoids abuse of a dominant position (see, among other authorities, Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, 13 August 1981, § 63, Series A no. 44; Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, § 90, ECHR 2004-I; Leyla ?žahin, cited above, § 108; and Karácsony and Others, cited above, § 147).

  • EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 64937/19

    ELVAN c. TÜRKIYE

    Se référant à la jurisprudence pertinente de la Cour (Oya Ataman c. Turquie, no 74552/01, §§ 41-43, CEDH 2006-XIV, Izci c. Turquie, no 42606/05, § 99, 23 juillet 2013, 1brahimov et autres c. Azerbaïdjan, nos 69234/11 et 2 autres, § 80, 11 février 2016, Navalnyy c. Russie [GC], nos 29580/12 et 4 autres, § 134, 15 novembre 2018), le Gouvernement affirme qu'en l'espèce le recours à la force par les policiers était devenu absolument nécessaire en raison des agissements de certains manifestants sur les lieux de l'événement en cause, où, selon lui, plus de deux cents individus s'étaient regroupés vers 1 heure et avaient commencé à vandaliser des commerces.
  • EGMR, 27.04.2021 - 15976/16

    TÖKÉS c. ROUMANIE

    En conséquence, la Cour estime plus opportun de se livrer à cette analyse dans le cadre de l'examen plus large de la proportionnalité des mesures litigieuses auquel elle procédera ci-dessous au regard du critère de la « nécessité ", c'est-à-dire en cherchant à déterminer si les juridictions nationales ont fourni des motifs pertinents et suffisants pour justifier les mesures litigieuses (voir, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy c. Russie [GC], nos 29580/12 et 4 autres, § 119, 15 novembre 2018).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 29580/12, 36847/12, 11252/13, 12317/13, 43746/14   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2017,1561
EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 29580/12, 36847/12, 11252/13, 12317/13, 43746/14 (https://dejure.org/2017,1561)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02.02.2017 - 29580/12, 36847/12, 11252/13, 12317/13, 43746/14 (https://dejure.org/2017,1561)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02. Februar 2017 - 29580/12, 36847/12, 11252/13, 12317/13, 43746/14 (https://dejure.org/2017,1561)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,1561) 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

    NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA

    Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - ...

  • juris (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges (2)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 74568/12

    Russland verurteilt: 25.000 Euro wegen Festnahme nach Demo

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 29580/12
    In the absence of any explicit reasons for not releasing the applicant, the Court considered the detention pending trial unjustified and arbitrary even though it fell within the forty-eight-hour time-limit provided for by Article 27.5 § 3 of the Code of Administrative Offences (see Navalnyy and Yashin, cited above, § 96, and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, § 150, 5 January 2016).

    In this regard, I would like to draw a parallel with the 2016 Frumkin v. Russia case (no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016).

  • EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

    KASPAROV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 29580/12
    Article 18 protects a legal interest separate from that protected by, for example, Article 5 of the Convention; any other conclusion would deprive the provision of a reasonable and independent scope of application (compare, in overall terms, the partly dissenting opinion of Judge Keller in Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, § 3, 11 October 2016)[1].
  • EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 3223/07

    ALEKSEY MAKAROV CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 47 AUTRES AFFAIRES

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 29580/12
    Article 18 of the Convention, as Judge Keller has written elsewhere, may be an accessory provision (as was made clear, for example, in Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 73, ECHR 2004-IV).
     
  • EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

    MALOFEYEVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 29580/12
    In particular, where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, § 42, ECHR 2006-XIV; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012; Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 136-37, 30 May 2013; and Kasparov and Others, cited above, § 91).
  • EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06

    BERLADIR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 29580/12
    In particular, where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, § 42, ECHR 2006-XIV; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012; Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 136-37, 30 May 2013; and Kasparov and Others, cited above, § 91).
  • EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 74552/01

    OYA ATAMAN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 29580/12
    In particular, where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, § 42, ECHR 2006-XIV; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012; Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 136-37, 30 May 2013; and Kasparov and Others, cited above, § 91).
  • EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 25691/04

    BUKTA ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 29580/12
    In particular, where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, § 42, ECHR 2006-XIV; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012; Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 136-37, 30 May 2013; and Kasparov and Others, cited above, § 91).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08

    FÁBER v. HUNGARY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 29580/12
    In particular, where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, § 42, ECHR 2006-XIV; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012; Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 136-37, 30 May 2013; and Kasparov and Others, cited above, § 91).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht