Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,55323
EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08 (https://dejure.org/2011,55323)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27.09.2011 - 32250/08 (https://dejure.org/2011,55323)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27. September 2011 - 32250/08 (https://dejure.org/2011,55323)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55323) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DIAMANTE AND PELLICCIONI v. SAN MARINO

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 8 No violation of P4-2 (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 ... (61)Zitiert selbst (14)

  • EGMR, 21.01.2010 - 42402/05

    Rechtssache W. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08
    42402/05 and 42423/05, 29 January 2008).

    42402/05 and 42423/05, § 61, 21 January 2010).

  • EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83
    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08
    In exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the Court cannot confine itself to considering the impugned decisions in isolation, but must look at them in the light of the case as a whole; it must determine whether the reasons adduced by the domestic courts were relevant and sufficient (see Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 68, Series A no. 130).
  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

    HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08
    Undoubtedly, consideration of what lies in the best interest of the child is of crucial importance (see Zawadka, cited above, § 54, and Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A).
  • EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96
    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08
    Thus, freedom of movement prohibits any measure liable to infringe that right or to restrict the exercise thereof which is not "in accordance with the law" and does not satisfy the requirement of a measure which can be considered "necessary in a democratic society" in the pursuit of the legitimate aims referred to in the third and fourth paragraph of the above-mentioned Article (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V (extracts).
  • EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 39388/05

    Maumousseau und Washington ./. Frankreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08
    First of all, in the balancing process particular importance must be attached to the best interests of the child which, depending on their nature and seriousness, may override those of the parents (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, §§ 66 and 67, 6 December 2007, and Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 64, ECHR 2003-VIII).
  • EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 15007/02

    IVANOV v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08
    The Court reiterates that an obligation to ask the authorities permission to leave each time does not correspond to the sense of the concept "freedom of movement" (see Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, § 85, 7 December 2006).
  • EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 14613/03

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08
    As regards the proportionality of the interference, the Court has particular regard to the duration of the measure in question (see Nikiforenko v. Ukraine, no. 14613/03, § 56, 18 February 2010).
  • EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 23087/07

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08
    However, it is evident from the facts of the case that there have not been any significant lapses of inactivity, or adjournments for reasons related to internal organisation (see, a contrario Veljkov v. Serbia, no. 23087/07, § 88, 19 April 2011 and Wildgruber v. Germany, nos.
  • EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 30595/02

    BOVE c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08
    On this basis, it is not sufficient for the treatment to include some unpleasant aspects (see Bove v. Italy, (dec.) no. 30595/02, 18 November 2004).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 40655/98

    ROLDAN TEXEIRA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08
    The Court considers that the series of domestic decisions banning travel, and dispossessing the second applicant of her passport, in the present case, restricted the second applicant's right to liberty of movement in a manner amounting to an interference, within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (see Roldan Texeira v. Italy (dec.), no. 40655/98, 26 October 2000, and Baumann, cited above, § 62).
  • EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90
  • EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

    SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12875/87

    Hoffmann ./. Österreich

  • EGMR, 28.11.1988 - 10929/84
  • EGMR, 05.06.2015 - 46043/14

    Schutzpflichten gegenüber dem Leben eines Patienten mit apallischem Syndrom bei …

    39221/98 and 41963/98, §§ 138"139, ECHR 2000"VIII; Šneersone and Kampanella v. Italy, no. 14737/09, § 61, 12 July 2011; Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, §§ 146-47, 27 September 2011; A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, §§ 48-50, 8 January 2013; and Raw and Others v. France, no. 10131/11, §§ 51-52, 7 March 2013).
  • EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 48151/11

    FEDERATION NATIONALE DES SYNDICATS SPORTIFS (FNASS) ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

    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, 10.04.2018 - 77180/11

    LEONOV v. RUSSIA

    In total, the length of the proceedings had been shorter than in the cases examined by the Court (they referred to Ribić v. Croatia, no. 27148/12, 2 April 2015, where the proceedings had lasted for seven years and eight months; Mihailova v. Bulgaria, no. 35978/02, 12 January 2006, where the proceedings had lasted for about two years and a half and where the Court had found no violation of Article 8; Ahrens v. Germany, no. 45071/09, 22 March 2012, where the proceedings had lasted for three years and seven months and where the Court had not found a violation of Article 8 either; and Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, 27 September 2011, where the proceedings had lasted for three years).

    Indeed, in the previous cases examined by the Court the lack of contact weighed heavily in favour of the finding that a procedural delay - even a relatively short one - amounted to a violation of the exceptional diligence requirement of Article 8 (see, for example, W. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 69, where the delay was about four months; Sylvester v. Austria, nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98, § 69, 24 April 2003, where the delay was slightly more than five months; Eberhard and M. v. Slovenia, no. 8673/05 and 9733/05, § 139, 1 December 2009; K. v. Slovenia, no. 41293/05, § 117, 7 July 2011; S.I. v. Slovenia, no. 45082/05, § 72, 13 October 2011; Ribić v. Croatia, no. 27148/12, §§ 99 and 100, 2 April 2015; and, by contrast, Süß, cited above, §§ 101-03; Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, § 189, 27 September 2011; and Gobec, cited above, § 144, all three of which concerned situations where regular contact was maintained).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht