Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 10.02.2011

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 50/02, 34383/03, 30943/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,88091
EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 50/02, 34383/03, 30943/04 (https://dejure.org/2012,88091)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.12.2012 - 50/02, 34383/03, 30943/04 (https://dejure.org/2012,88091)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. Dezember 2012 - 50/02, 34383/03, 30943/04 (https://dejure.org/2012,88091)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,88091) 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

    IGNATOV ET 2 AUTRES AFFAIRES 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)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    IGNATOV AND 2 OTHER CASES AGAINST BULGARIA

    Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

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 ... (4)

  • EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 48151/11

    FÉDÉRATION NATIONALE DES ASSOCIATIONS ET SYNDICATS DE SPORTIFS (FNASS) ET AUTRES

    Quant aux atteintes à la liberté de quitter n'importe quel pays y compris le sien, il indique qu'elles concernent des interdictions administratives ou judiciaires, telles qu'une obligation d'autorisation préalable pour quitter le pays (Diamante et Pelliccioni c. Saint-Marin, no 32250/08, 27 septembre 2011), la confiscation d'un passeport (Baumann, précité ; Nalbantski c. Bulgarie, no 30943/04, 10 février 2011) ou le refus de délivrer un document de voyage (Soltysyak c. Russie, no 4663/05, 10 février 2011 ; Ignatov c. Bulgarie, no 50/02, 2 juillet 2009).
  • 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).
  • EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 26764/12

    ROTARU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

    Par conséquent et compte tenu de sa jurisprudence constante en la matière, elle ne peut que conclure que la mesure contestée s'analyse en une ingérence dans l'exercice par le requérant de son droit de quitter le pays (Baumann c. France, no 33592/96, § 62, CEDH 2001-V (extraits), Ignatov c. Bulgarie, no 50/02, § 33, 2 juillet 2009, et Kerimli c. Azerbaïdjan, no 3967/09, § 47, 16 juillet 2015).
  • EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 5170/15

    STETSOV c. UKRAINE

    Il en résulte qu'une mesure susceptible de porter atteinte à ce droit ou d'en restreindre l'exercice n'est conforme à l'article 2 du Protocole no 4 que si elle est prévue par la loi, poursuit l'un des buts légitimes visés au troisième paragraphe de la disposition en question et peut passer pour « nécessaire dans une société démocratique'à la poursuite dudit objectif (Ignatov c. Bulgarie, no 50/02, § 32, 2 juillet 2009).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30943/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,55373
EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30943/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,55373)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.02.2011 - 30943/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,55373)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Februar 2011 - 30943/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,55373)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55373) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    NALBANTSKI v. BULGARIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 2 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Violation of P4-2 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30943/04
    Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy in respect of an arguable complaint of a breach of the requirement of Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 146-57, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

    MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30943/04
    A remedy is effective if it prevents the alleged violation or its continuation or provides adequate redress for any breach that has already occurred (ibid., § 158, and Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
  • EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 16528/05

    HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30943/04
    However, such restrictions can be justified in a given case only if there are clear indications of a genuine public interest which outweigh the individual's right to freedom of movement (see, mutatis mutandis, Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, § 63 in fine, 10 July 2008).
  • EKMR, 06.03.1984 - 10307/83

    M. v. the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30943/04
    The decision to take away the applicant's international passport clearly amounted to such a measure (see M. v. Germany, no. 10307/83, Commission decision of 6 March 1984, Decisions and Reports (DR) 37, p. 113; Peltonen v. Finland, no. 19583/92, Commission decision of 20 February 1995, DR 80-a, p. 38; Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, §§ 62 and 63, ECHR 2001-V; Napijalo v. Croatia, no. 66485/01, § 69, 13 November 2003; and Ignatov, cited above, § 33).
  • EKMR, 20.02.1995 - 19583/92

    PELTONEN c. FINLANDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30943/04
    The decision to take away the applicant's international passport clearly amounted to such a measure (see M. v. Germany, no. 10307/83, Commission decision of 6 March 1984, Decisions and Reports (DR) 37, p. 113; Peltonen v. Finland, no. 19583/92, Commission decision of 20 February 1995, DR 80-a, p. 38; Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, §§ 62 and 63, ECHR 2001-V; Napijalo v. Croatia, no. 66485/01, § 69, 13 November 2003; and Ignatov, cited above, § 33).
  • EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

    RAIMONDO v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30943/04
    It has countenanced much more serious restrictions on the freedom of movement of individuals suspected of being members of the Mafia, even in the absence of a criminal conviction (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 39, Series A no. 281-A, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 195, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

    FUNKE v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30943/04
    The Court, for its part, does not find it necessary to determine whether the measure against the applicant was "accordance with law", as, for the reasons which follow, it considers that it was incompatible with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 in other respects (see, mutatis mutandis, Funke v. France, 25 February 1993, § 51, Series A no. 256-A; Crémieux v. France, 25 February 1993, § 34, Series A no. 256-B; Miailhe v. France (no. 1), 25 February 1993, § 32, Series A no. 256-C; Matheron v. France, no. 57752/00, § 32, 29 March 2005; and Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 15197/02, § 41, 22 May 2008).
  • EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 11471/85

    CRÉMIEUX v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30943/04
    The Court, for its part, does not find it necessary to determine whether the measure against the applicant was "accordance with law", as, for the reasons which follow, it considers that it was incompatible with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 in other respects (see, mutatis mutandis, Funke v. France, 25 February 1993, § 51, Series A no. 256-A; Crémieux v. France, 25 February 1993, § 34, Series A no. 256-B; Miailhe v. France (no. 1), 25 February 1993, § 32, Series A no. 256-C; Matheron v. France, no. 57752/00, § 32, 29 March 2005; and Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 15197/02, § 41, 22 May 2008).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30943/04
    It has countenanced much more serious restrictions on the freedom of movement of individuals suspected of being members of the Mafia, even in the absence of a criminal conviction (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 39, Series A no. 281-A, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 195, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 48151/11

    FÉDÉRATION NATIONALE DES ASSOCIATIONS ET SYNDICATS DE SPORTIFS (FNASS) ET AUTRES

    Quant aux atteintes à la liberté de quitter n'importe quel pays y compris le sien, il indique qu'elles concernent des interdictions administratives ou judiciaires, telles qu'une obligation d'autorisation préalable pour quitter le pays (Diamante et Pelliccioni c. Saint-Marin, no 32250/08, 27 septembre 2011), la confiscation d'un passeport (Baumann, précité ; Nalbantski c. Bulgarie, no 30943/04, 10 février 2011) ou le refus de délivrer un document de voyage (Soltysyak c. Russie, no 4663/05, 10 février 2011 ; Ignatov c. Bulgarie, no 50/02, 2 juillet 2009).
  • EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 38121/20

    L.B. v. LITHUANIA

    The Court observes that the cases in which it accepted that interference with the freedom of movement pursued the legitimate aim of the maintenance of public order concerned, for example, restrictions on travelling abroad imposed on persons who had been charged with criminal offences, pending their prosecution (see A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, § 47, 31 March 2009; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, § 54, 17 February 2011; and Kerimli, cited above, § 49); travel bans on convicted and not yet rehabilitated offenders (see Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, § 63, 10 February 2011); preventive measures, including special supervision, taken against suspected members of the Mafia (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 194, ECHR 2000-IV); or measures which sought to restrict individuals' right to leave the country for the purpose of securing the payment of taxes (see Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 74288/14 and 64568/16, § 92, 14 October 2021, and the case-law cited therein).
  • 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).
  • EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 24203/16

    PAGERIE c. FRANCE

    Toutefois, une restriction à la liberté de circulation ne peut être justifiée, dans une affaire donnée, que s'il existe des indices clairs d'une véritable exigence d'intérêt public prévalant sur le droit de l'individu à la liberté de circulation (Hajibeyli c. Azerbaïdjan, no 16528/05, § 63, 10 juillet 2008, Nalbantski c. Bulgarie, no 30943/04, § 65, 10 février 2011, et Popoviciu c. Roumanie, no 52942/09, § 91, 1er mars 2016).
  • EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13

    MURSALIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

    The Court agrees with the applicants that those measures amounted to an interference with their right to leave their own country within the meaning of Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4. It must therefore be examined whether the interference was "in accordance with law", pursued one or more of the legitimate aims set out in Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4 and whether it was "necessary in a democratic society" to achieve such an aim (see Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, § 61, 10 February 2011; Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, § 30, ECHR 2012; Kerimli v. Azerbaijan, no. 3967/09, § 45, 16 July 2015; and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 105, 23 February 2017).
  • EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 60785/19

    MØRCK JENSEN v. DENMARK

    Proceeding on the assumption that such a restriction falls under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, it must therefore be examined whether the interference was "in accordance with law", pursued one or more of the legitimate aims set out in Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4 and was "necessary in a democratic society" to achieve such an aim (see Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, § 61, 10 February 2011; Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, § 30, ECHR 2012; Kerimli v. Azerbaijan, no. 3967/09, § 45, 16 July 2015; and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 105, 23 February 2017).
  • EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 68957/16

    TORRESI c. ITALIE

    En l'espèce, le refus de délivrer un passeport au requérant s'analyse en une atteinte à ce droit (Baumann c. France, no 33592/96, §§ 62-63 CEDH 2001-V (extraits), Napijalo c. Croatie, no 66485/01, §§ 69-73, 13 novembre 2003, et Nalbantski c. Bulgarie, no 30943/04, § 61, 10 février 2011).
  • EGMR - 32098/13 (anhängig)

    BENYASH v. RUSSIA

    In the light of the Court's findings in the Nalbantski v. Bulgaria judgment (no. 30943/04, 10 February 2011, §§ 66-67), was there a violation of the applicant's right to leave Russia under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4? Did the domestic authorities examine his individual situation or explain the need to impose such a measure on him?.
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