Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LYKOUREZOS c. GRECE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Violation de P1-3 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 8 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédures nationale et de la Convention (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LYKOUREZOS v. GREECE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of P1-3 Not necessary to examine Art. 8 Pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention and domestic proceedings (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (französisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 33554/03
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00

  SIDABRAS ET DZIAUTAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

  Finally, the Court refers to its recent finding that a far-reaching ban on taking up private-sector employment did affect "private life" (see Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 47, ECHR 2004-VIII), particularly in view of Article 1 § 2 of the European Social Charter, which came into force in respect of Italy on 1 September 1999, and which states "[w]ith a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to work, the Parties undertake... to protect effectively the right of the worker to earn his living in an occupation freely entered upon"."[2].

  55480/00 and 59330/00, § 47, ECHR 2004-VIII.

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

  It attaches particular weight in this respect to the text of Article 1 § 2 of the European Social Charter and the interpretation given by the European Committee of Social Rights... and to the texts adopted by the ILO... It further reiterates that there is no watertight division separating the sphere of social and economic rights from the field covered by the Convention (see Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, pp. 14-16, § 26)."[1].
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

  It is, after all, in the course of their working lives that the majority of people have a significant opportunity of developing relationships with the outside world (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 29, Series A no. 251-B).

 
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 56550/00

  MÓLKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

  Mólka v. Poland (dec.), no. 56550/00, ECHR 2006-IV.
• EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

  MIKULIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

  It can sometimes embrace aspects of an individual's physical and social identity (see Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 53, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

  On this point, the Court reaffirms that the object and purpose of the Convention requires its provisions to be interpreted and applied in such a way as to make their stipulations not just theoretical or illusory but practical and effective (see, for example, Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37; United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; and Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 100, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

  However, having regard to the preparatory work to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1and the interpretation of the provision in the context of the Convention as a whole, the Court has established that it guarantees individual rights, including the right to vote and to stand for election (see, among many other authorities, Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, §§ 46-51, Series A no. 113; Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 56-57, ECHR 2005-IX; and, more recently, Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 102, ECHR 2006-IV).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

  On this point, the Court reaffirms that the object and purpose of the Convention requires its provisions to be interpreted and applied in such a way as to make their stipulations not just theoretical or illusory but practical and effective (see, for example, Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37; United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; and Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 100, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

  The Court would reaffirm that the margin in this area is wide (see Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 63, ECHR 1999-I; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV; and Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 25144/94

  Leyla Zana

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

  25144/94, 26149/95 to 26154/95, 27100/95 and 27101/95, § 33, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 17707/02

  MELNITCHENKO c. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 46726/99

  PODKOLZINA c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 24159/22

  GU?MUNDUR GUNNARSSON AND MAGN?S DAV?? NOR?DAHL v. ICELAND

  Lastly, it should be noted that a review of a constitutional provision under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention has already been carried out by the Court in Paksas v. Lithuania ([GC] no. 34932/04, ECHR 2011 (extracts), adopted by a large majority) and in Lykourezos v. Greece (no. 33554/03, ECHR 2006-VIII, adopted unanimously).
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17

  Menschenrechtsgerichtshof fordert Freilassung von Selahattin Demirtas

  However, the rights guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, which are inherent in the concept of a truly democratic system, would be merely illusory if elected representatives or their voters could be arbitrarily deprived of them at any moment (see Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, § 56, ECHR 2006-VIII).
• EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 14305/17

  Selahattin Demirtas

  In the present case, having regard to the wording of the first two paragraphs of Article 83 of the Constitution and the interpretation, or rather lack thereof, of that provision by the national courts, the Court considers that the interference with the exercise of the applicant's freedom of expression was not "prescribed by law" in that it did not satisfy the requirement of foreseeability, since in defending a political viewpoint, the applicant could legitimately expect to enjoy the benefit of the constitutional legal framework in place, affording the protection of immunity for political speech and constitutional procedural safeguards (see, mutatis mutandis, Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, §§ 54-56, ECHR 2006-VIII).

  In the present case, having regard to the wording of the first two paragraphs of Article 83 of the Constitution and the interpretation, or rather lack thereof, of that provision by the national courts, the Court considers that the interference with the exercise of the applicant's freedom of expression was not "prescribed by law" in that it did not satisfy the requirement of foreseeability, since in defending a political viewpoint, the applicant could legitimately expect to enjoy the benefit of the constitutional legal framework in place, affording the protection of immunity for political speech and constitutional procedural safeguards (see, mutatis mutandis, Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, §§ 54-56, ECHR 2006-VIII).".

 
• EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 20799/06

  KERIMOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Furthermore, the object and purpose of the Convention, which is an instrument for the protection of human rights, requires its provisions to be interpreted and applied in such a way as to make their stipulations not theoretical or illusory but practical and effective (see, among many other authorities, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 33, Reports 1998-I; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 100, ECHR 1999-III; and Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, § 56, ECHR 2006-VIII).

  That is not, however, sufficient to award the sums claimed, because the sums claimed would have to be set off against other income which he may have been receiving and which he would have had to forego if elected, as in the case of Lykourezos v. Greece ([no. 33554/03, § 64, ECHR 2006-VIII], in which the applicant was prevented from continuing to exercise his mandate).

• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  Russland verurteilt: Recht auf freie Wahl verletzt

  Furthermore, the object and purpose of the Convention, which is an instrument for the protection of human rights, requires its provisions to be interpreted and applied in such a way as to make their stipulations not theoretical or illusory, but practical and effective (see, among many other authorities, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, and Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, § 56, ECHR 2006-VIII).
• EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 78039/01

  GROSARU c. ROUMANIE

  In that regard, the Court points out that it has already sanctioned a wide, and therefore arbitrary, interpretation of a legal provision relating to elections (see the cases of Kovach v. Ukraine (application no. 39424/02, §§ 48-62, 7 February 2008), concerning invalidation of the ballot in four constituencies during parliamentary elections, which led to the election of a candidate other than the applicant and Lykourezos v. Greece (no. 33554/03, §§ 50-58, ECHR 2006-VIII), concerning the forfeiture of a parliamentary seat as a result of professional incompatibility introduced by a new Law, and Paschalidis, Koutmeridis and Zaharakis v. Greece (nos. 27863/05, 28422/05 and 28028/05, §§ 29-35, 10 April 2008), concerning the counting of blank votes when calculating the electoral quotient in a single constituency).
• EGMR, 30.01.2007 - 10226/03

  YUMAK AND SADAK v. TURKEY

  Equally, once the wishes of the people have been freely and democratically expressed, no subsequent amendment to the organisation of the electoral system may call that choice into question, except in the presence of compelling grounds for the democratic order (see Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, § 52, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 58302/10

  G.K. c. BELGIQUE

  À titre subsidiaire, le Gouvernement fait valoir que s'agissant de la perte de salaire, rien ne permettait d'affirmer que la requérante aurait exercé son mandat jusqu'au terme de la législature et qu'elle n'a en outre fourni aucune précision quant à l'activité qu'elle a exercé ni quant aux revenus qu'elle a perçus à la suite de sa démission (Lykourezos c. Grèce, no 33554/03, § 64, CEDH 2006-VIII).
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 20201/04

  FRODL v. AUSTRIA

  There is room for implied limitations and Contracting States must be allowed a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere since there are numerous ways of organising and running electoral systems and a wealth of differences, inter alia, in historical development, cultural diversity and political thought within Europe which it is for each Contracting State to mould into their own democratic vision (see Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, § 51, ECHR 2006-VIII).
• EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 39424/02

  KOVACH v. UKRAINE

  Furthermore, the Court has considered that this Article guarantees the individual's right to stand for election and, once elected, to sit as a member of parliament (see Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, § 50, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 42202/07

  SITAROPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 3669/03

  ADAMSONS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 21188/09

  GLUHAKOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 18705/06

  NAMAT ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 30633/11

  LAY LAY COMPANY LIMITED v. MALTA
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 6984/06

  HAJILI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 26733/02

  SOBACI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 8691/02

  SILAY c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 36503/11

  GAHRAMANLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 18475/06

  KERIMLI AND ALIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 4508/06

  ORUJOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 15394/02

  ILICAK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 13523/12

  BARSKI AND SWIECZKOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 30244/11

  FILINI c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 4641/06

  MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)