Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 31039/11, 48511/11, 76810/12, 14618/13, 13817/14   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,3904
EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 31039/11, 48511/11, 76810/12, 14618/13, 13817/14 (https://dejure.org/2016,3904)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15.03.2016 - 31039/11, 48511/11, 76810/12, 14618/13, 13817/14 (https://dejure.org/2016,3904)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15. März 2016 - 31039/11, 48511/11, 76810/12, 14618/13, 13817/14 (https://dejure.org/2016,3904)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,3904) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    NOVRUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

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

    [DEU] Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications ...

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

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 (31)

  • EGMR - 2139/10 (anhängig)

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 31039/11
    It is for the Committee of Ministers to assess the effectiveness of the measures proposed by the Russian Government and to follow up on their subsequent implementation in line with the Convention requirements (see Lindheim and Others v. Norway, nos. 13221/08 and 2139/10, § 137, 12 June 2012).
  • EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 31242/05

    VLADIMIR SOKOLOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 31039/11
    In cases concerning a domestic inquiry into the facts underlying the application, the Court was unable to find, in the absence of evidence of pressure or compulsion to give evidence, that the applicant was hindered in the exercise of the right of individual petition (see Vladimir Sokolov v. Russia, no. 31242/05, § 80, 29 March 2011; Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, §§ 118-122, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts); and Matyar v. Turkey, no. 23423/94, § 159, 21 February 2002).
  • EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

    D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 31039/11
    The Court has established in its case-law that discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations (see D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007-IV, and Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 60, ECHR 2008).
  • EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03

    TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 31039/11
    In cases concerning a domestic inquiry into the facts underlying the application, the Court was unable to find, in the absence of evidence of pressure or compulsion to give evidence, that the applicant was hindered in the exercise of the right of individual petition (see Vladimir Sokolov v. Russia, no. 31242/05, § 80, 29 March 2011; Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, §§ 118-122, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts); and Matyar v. Turkey, no. 23423/94, § 159, 21 February 2002).
  • EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 3896/04

    RYABOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 31039/11
    By contrast, the Court established a breach of Article 34 where the questioning of the applicants was unconnected to any domestic investigation or conducted by an authority having no competence in the matter (see Kosheleva and Others v. Russia, no. 9046/07, §§ 20-29, 17 January 2012, and Ryabov v. Russia, no. 3896/04, §§ 60-65, 31 January 2008).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 72250/01

    LOPATA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 31039/11
    Similarly, lacking any submissions from the Government about the nature or findings of a domestic investigation into complaints raised by the applicant before the Court and having no transcripts of the meetings between the applicant and the State officials, the Court was not satisfied that the applicant was contacted in connection with a domestic investigation and concluded to a breach of Article 34 of the Convention (see Lopata v. Russia, no. 72250/01, § 156, 13 July 2010; Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 249, 13 July 2006; and Dulas v. Turkey, no. 25801/94, § 81, 30 January 2001).
  • EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

    SAVRIDDIN DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 31039/11
    The Court will therefore abstain at this stage from formulating general measures, considering that the indications provided above will help to ensure the proper execution of the present judgment under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers (see Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 264, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 12027/10

    STATILEO v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 31039/11
    The problem underlying the violation the Court has found concerns the legislation itself, and the findings extend beyond the sole interests of the applicants in the instant case (see Statileo v. Croatia, no. 12027/10, § 165, 10 July 2014).
  • EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

    CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 31039/11
    However, with a view to helping the respondent State to fulfil its obligations under Article 46, the Court may seek to indicate the type of individual and general measures that might be taken in order to put an end to the situation it has found to exist (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 158-159, ECHR 2014; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 254-255, ECHR 2012; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 148, 17 September 2009; and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 194, ECHR 2004-V).
  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

    STANEV c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 31039/11
    However, with a view to helping the respondent State to fulfil its obligations under Article 46, the Court may seek to indicate the type of individual and general measures that might be taken in order to put an end to the situation it has found to exist (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 158-159, ECHR 2014; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 254-255, ECHR 2012; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 148, 17 September 2009; and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 194, ECHR 2004-V).
  • EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 45330/99

    S.L. v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

    CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

    Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als

  • EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 25801/94

    DULAS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

    POPOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 9046/07

    KOSHELEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

    BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

    ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53736/08

    RIDIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  • EKMR, 13.07.1987 - 12513/86

    W. J. and D. P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

    THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  • EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 52178/10

    SAMSONNIKOV v. ESTONIA

  • EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

    NOGOLICA c. CROATIE

  • EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 27335/13

    SHALYA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

    MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  • EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 16552/02

    PIKIC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 6222/10

    A.H. KHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 2747/02

    VACHKOVI v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 30141/04

    SCHALK AND KOPF v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 10.03.2011 - 2700/10

    KIYUTIN c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR - 25402/15 (anhängig)

    TOSHMIRZAYEV v. RUSSIA

    31039/11, 48511/11, 76810/12, 14618/13 and 13817/14, §§ 49-61, 15 March 2016.

    (e) Did the Russian courts examine the matter with due regard to the criteria that the Court uses to assess whether an expulsion measure is necessary in a democratic society (see Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 57-58, ECHR 2006-XII)? Did the courts ground their factual findings on all the available evidence and on scientifically valid premises (see I.B. v. Greece, no. 552/10, § 88, ECHR 2013, and Novruk and Others v. Russia, nos. 31039/11, 48511/11, 76810/12, 14618/13 and 13817/14, § 104, 15 March 2016)?.

    Having regard to the principles established in the Court's case-law in similar cases (see Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, ECHR 2011, and Novruk and Others v. Russia, nos. 31039/11, 48511/11, 76810/12, 14618/13 and 13817/14, 15 March 2016), was there a violation of the applicant's right to be protected against discrimination under Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with his right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8?.

  • EGMR - 20981/15 (anhängig)

    GRACIOV v. RUSSIA

    It raises an issue under Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8 (see Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, ECHR 2011, and Novruk and Others v. Russia, nos. 31039/11, 48511/11, 76810/12, 14618/13 and 13817/14, 15 March 2016).

    Has there been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8, as regards the decision on the applicant's expulsion from Russia on account of his HIV-positive status (see Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, ECHR 2011, and Novruk and Others v. Russia, nos. 31039/11, 48511/11, 76810/12, 14618/13 and 13817/14, 15 March 2016)?.

  • EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 28895/14

    KHACHATRYAN AND KONOVALOVA v. RUSSIA

    In that respect, it should also be kept in mind that determining an application for a residence permit based on an applicant's HIV-positive status has been found to be in breach of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 (see Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, §§ 73-74, ECHR 2011, and Novruk and Others v. Russia, nos. 31039/11 and 4 others, § 111, 15 March 2016).

    In Novruk and Others v Russia (nos. 31039/11 and 4 others, 15 March 2016), where section 7(1)(13) of the Foreign Nationals Act was at issue, the Court referred to the Constitutional Court's statement that the law-enforcement authorities and courts might - on the basis of humanitarian considerations - take into account the family situation and the state of health of the HIV-positive foreign national or stateless person, and other exceptional but meritorious circumstances, in determining whether the person should be granted temporary residence in Russia.

  • EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 45431/14

    TIMOFEYEV ET POSTUPKIN c. RUSSIE

    Faisant une lecture combinée de la décision Abramyan et autres (précitée) et de l'arrêt Novruk et autres c. Russie (nos 31039/11 et 4 autres, §§ 75-76, 15 mars 2016), l'intéressé soutient qu'un pourvoi devant une ou deux instances de cassation devrait être pris compte aux fins du calcul du délai de six mois de l'article 35 § 1 de la Convention.
  • EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 57435/09

    PAULIKAS v. LITHUANIA

    For Article 14 to become applicable, what is necessary, and also sufficient, is for the facts of the case to fall "within the ambit" of one or more of the Articles of the Convention or its Protocols (see Novruk and Others v. Russia, nos. 31039/11, 48511/11, 76810/12, 14618/13 and 13817/14, § 84, 15 March 2016, and the cases cited therein).
  • EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 42021/13

    YELISEYEVY c. RUSSIE

    La Cour rappelle également que, dans les affaires russes soulevant la même question de l'exercice du pourvoi en cassation, elle n'a pas exigé des requérants de faire usage de ce recours à une époque où cette voie de droit n'était pas encore qualifiée d'effective (Novruk et autres c. Russie, nos 31039/11 et 4 autres requêtes, §§ 70-76, 15 mars 2016, et Kocherov et Sergeyeva c. Russie, no 16899/13, §§ 64-69, 29 mars 2016).
  • EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 10114/06

    OOO KHABAROVSKAYA TOPLIVNAYA KOMPANIYA c. RUSSIE

    La Cour rappelle que dans les affaires russes soulevant la même question d'épuisement devant les juridictions de droit commun, elle n'a pas exigé des requérants de saisir l'instance supérieure à une époque où cette instance n'était pas encore qualifiée d'effective (Novruk et autres c. Russie, nos 31039/11 et 4 autres, §§ 70-76, 15 mars 2016, et Kocherov et Sergeyeva c. Russie, no 16899/13, §§ 64-69, 29 mars 2016).
  • EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 73736/12

    I.N. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

    The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to discrimination on the basis of an individual's health status (see, for example, Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, §§ 39-74, ECHR 2011, and Novruk and Others v. Russia, nos. 31039/11 and 4 others, §§ 81-112, 15 March 2016).
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