Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NARDONE c. ITALIE

  Art. 6, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 17, Art. 14 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (45)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 34368/02

  Ce n'est que lorsque ces deux conditions sont remplies que la nature subsidiaire du mécanisme de protection de la Convention empêche un examen de la part de la Cour (voir Eckle c. Allemagne, arrêt du 15 juillet 1982, série A no 51, p. 32, §§ 69 ss., et Jensen c. Danemark (déc.), no 48470/99, 20.09.01).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 34368/02

  La Cour rappelle que selon sa jurisprudence, le dommage matériel consiste dans les pertes effectivement subies en conséquence directe de la violation alléguée et que le dommage moral comprend la réparation de l'état d'angoisse, des désagréments et des incertitudes résultant de cette violation, ainsi que d'autres dommages non matériels (voir l'arrêt Comingersoll S.A. c. Portugal [GC], no 35382/97, § 29, CEDH 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 34368/02

  La Cour rappelle que l'impartialité doit s'apprécier selon une démarche subjective, essayant de déterminer la conviction personnelle de tel juge en telle occasion, et aussi selon une démarche objective amenant à s'assurer qu'il offrait des garanties suffisantes pour exclure à cet égard tout doute légitime (Padovani c. Italie, arrêt du 26 février 1993, série A no 257-B, § 25-28).
• EKMR, 10.04.1997 - 31332/96

  NICOLETTI contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 34368/02

  Or, on ne saurait parler d'entrave à l'accès à un tribunal lorsqu'une partie, représentée par un avocat, saisit librement la juridiction compétente et présente devant elle ses arguments (Nicoletti c. Italie (déc.), no 31332/96, 10.4.1997).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.06.2007 - 14626/03

  DELLE CAVE AND CORRADO v. ITALY

  It is for the Court to verify, ex post facto, firstly whether the authorities have acknowledged, at least in substance, the violation of a right protected by the Convention, and secondly whether the redress provided in relation thereto has been appropriate and sufficient (see, among other authorities, Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003; and Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03

  SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA

  The Court does not doubt that the domestic courts in the present case, with every desire to be just and eminently reasonable, attempted to assess the cumulative effect which the conditions of detention had had on the applicant's well-being (see, mutatis mutandis, Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II) and to determine the level of physical suffering, emotional distress, anxiety or other harmful effects sustained by the applicant by reason of his detention in those conditions (see Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004).
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16

  NIKITIN v. ESTONIA and 5 other applications

  The domestic courts should, in each case, attempt to assess the cumulative effect which the conditions of detention have on the applicant's well-being (see, mutatis mutandis, Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II) and determine the level of physical suffering, emotional distress, anxiety or other harmful effects sustained by the prisoner by reason of his detention in those conditions (see Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.05.2020 - C-30/19

  Braathens Regional Aviation - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Richtlinie …

  {FN:45} Vgl. u. a. Entscheidung des EGMR vom 25. November 2004, Nardone/Italien (CE:ECHR:2004:1125DEC003436802, Nr. 1 des Abschnitts "Rechtliche Würdigung"), und Urteil des EGMR vom 7. Juni 2012, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. und Di Stefano/Italien (CE:ECHR:2012:0607JUD003843309, Nr. 81 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung sowie Nrn. 87 und 88).
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  MUCIBABIC v. SERBIA

  It is therefore for the Court to verify, ex post facto, whether the redress afforded domestically by the Constitutional Court was appropriate and sufficient, having regard to the just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003; and Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004; see also Sarisska v. Slovakia, no. 36768/09, 30 August 2011; Nic Gibb v. Ireland (dec.), no. 17707/10, 25 March 2014; and Žarkovic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75187/12, 9 June 2015).
• EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 77818/12

  PENCHEVI v. BULGARIA

  In that connection the Court is required to verify whether there has been an acknowledgment, at least in substance, by the authorities of a violation, between April 2010 and December 2012, of the rights protected by the Convention and whether appropriate and sufficient redress has been provided (see, inter alia, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51; Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003; Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004).
• EGMR, 23.01.2014 - 24125/06

  W v. SLOVENIA

  There is no standard by which pain and suffering, physical discomfort and mental distress and anguish can be measured in monetary terms (see Shilbergs, cited above, § 76, and Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004).
• EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 43233/02

  MAKSIMOV v. RUSSIA

  We are not convinced that the domestic courts in the present case, acting out of a genuine desire to be just and eminently reasonable, attempted to assess the effect which the instance of ill-treatment had had on the applicant's well-being (see, mutatis mutandis, Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II) and to determine the level of physical suffering, emotional distress, anxiety or other harmful effects sustained by the applicant (see Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004).
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64886/01

  COCCHIARELLA v. ITALY

  Il découle de ce qui précède qu'il appartient à la Cour de vérifier, d'une part, s'il y a eu reconnaissance par les autorités, au moins en substance, d'une violation d'un droit protégé par la Convention et, d'autre part, si le redressement peut être considéré comme approprié et suffisant (voir, notamment, Normann c. Danemark (déc.), no 44704/98, 14 juin 2001, Jensen et Rasmussen c. Danemark (déc.), no 52620/99, 20 mars 2003, et Nardone c. Italie (déc.), no 34368/02, 25 novembre 2004).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10

  MILOVANOVIC v. SERBIA

  According to the Court's settled case-law, a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him or her of his or her status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and subsequently afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for the breach of the Convention (see, for the main principles, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-213, ECHR 2006-V, and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; see also, among other authorities, Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003; and Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004).
• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 18280/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 65075/01

  GIUSEPPINA AND ORESTINA PROCACCINI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 15352/11

  NIKOLIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 62439/12

  KOTILAINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 65102/01

  GIUSEPPE MOSTACCIUOLO v. ITALY (No. 2)
• EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 32887/19

  I.G. v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 16605/09

  N.D. v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

  KOPYLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64890/01

  APICELLA v. ITALY
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64699/01

  MUSCI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 42429/16

  MEMEDOVA v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 49072/21

  PANJU c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 2474/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.09.2026 - 70189/16
• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 25688/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 24446/09

  IURII v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 67576/10

  PIETRIS S.A. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 62155/00

  PROVIDE S.R.L. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 4603/11

  CIRNEROVÁ AND 31 OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 56301/00

  LORENZO CAMPANA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 62154/00

  PRATI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 66419/01

  MARTINELLI ET DOTTI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 64889/01

  CONCETTA PARRELLA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 8362/14

  KOÇ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 56300/00

  FASCINI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 62157/00

  LOCATELLI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 64888/01

  CIVITILLO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 62158/00

  BERTOSSI ET MARTINELLI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 66418/01

  CERUTI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 47624/06

  COHA v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 31689/03

  ARMAS c. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 56293/00

  G.M. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 9333/14

  ERGUN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 62265/00

  GREGORI c. ITALIE