Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OLIVIEIRA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 8, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3 MRK
  No violation of P4-2 No separate issue under Art. 8 (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OLIVIEIRA c. PAYS-BAS

  Art. 8, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3 MRK
  Non-violation de P4-2 Aucune question distincte au regard de l'art. 8 (französisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 01.07.1998 - 33129/96
• EGMR, 06.06.2000 - 33129/96
• EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 33129/96

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 33129/96

  The Court reiterates that, according to its settled case-law, the expression "in accordance with the law" not only requires that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 33129/96

  The Court has stressed the importance of this concept in the following terms (see Malone v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, p. 32, § 67; see also, more recently, Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 56, ECHR 2000-II, and Rotaru, cited above, § 55):.
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 33129/96

  Although such persons were thus put on notice that they might be made subject to a restriction on their freedom of movement, this cannot in our opinion be considered a proper substitute for public access to the official text of the instructions themselves (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, pp. 33 and 35-36, §§ 87 and 93).
• EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 12963/87

  MARGARETA AND ROGER ANDERSSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 33129/96

  However, a law which confers a discretion is not in itself inconsistent with this requirement, provided that the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise are indicated with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see, among other authorities, Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden, judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 226-A, p. 25, § 75).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 43494/09

  GARIB v. THE NETHERLANDS

  One could argue, on the basis of the Article's drafting history and the fact that nationals of States Parties have a de facto absolute right of residence in the territory of their State under Article 12 ICCPR,[1] that a restriction under paragraph 4 is only possible in particular areas during emergency situations, by analogy with restrictions to the liberty of movement (see Landvreugd v. the Netherlands, no. 37331/97, § 71, 4 June 2002, and Olivieira v. the Netherlands, no. 33129/96, § 56, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates its settled case-law, according to which the expression "in accordance with the law" not only requires that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, for example, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V, and Olivieira v. the Netherlands, no. 33129/96, § 47, ECHR 2002-IV; see also, as a more recent authority, Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 59, 1 July 2008).