Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 3468/20, 5898/20, 6517/20, 7270/20, 10808/20, 12513/20, 13324/20, 14941/20, 15398/20, 16557/20, 16917/20, 18751/20, 19089/20, 20789/20, 20790/20, 21291/20, 23501/20, 29109/20, 29218/20, 29787/20, 30745/20, 31074/20, 34247/20, 34348/20, 39479/20, 41256/20, |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SUBASI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-b) No significant disadvantage;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
SUBASI c. TURQUIE et 29 autres affaires
[FRE]
Wird zitiert von ... (25) Zitiert selbst (31)
- KAG Münster, 28.01.2010 - 26/09
Kostentragungspflicht des Dienstgebers für die Hinzuziehung eines …
- VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 18.02.2005 - 12/02
- VK Niedersachsen, 29.10.2002 - 23/02
Leistungsbeschreibung: bei Unklarheiten in den Verdingungsunterlagen ist der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 3468/20
23/02/2017- ongoing.23/02/2017-ongoing.
23/02/2017- ongoing.
23/02/2017-ongoing.
- BGH, 22.12.2011 - AK 22/11
Fortdauer der Untersuchungshaft über sechs Monate hinaus (dringender Tatverdacht; …
- EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 10/10
BRUNNER v. TURKEY
- KAG Aachen, 08.08.2006 - 18/06
- RG, 18.05.1905 - 20/05
Ist fahrlässige Übertretung der Vorschrift des § 368 Nr. 10 St.G.B.'s strafbar?
- KAG Freiburg, 19.06.2009 - 11/09
Anspruch auf Freistellung und Kostenübernahme für eine beabsichtigte …
- EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 55470/00
FERLA v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 3468/20
The Court has thus found that limitations on the frequency and duration of family visits, supervision of those visits and the subjection of a detainee to special visiting arrangements constitute an interference with the applicants' rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, § 23, 18 December 2018, with further references to Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 69, ECHR 2003-II; Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003; Kučera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, 17 July 2007; Ferla v. Poland, no. 55470/00, § 38, 20 May 2008; and Vidish v. Russia, no. 53120/08, § 36, 15 March 2016).However, it awards each of the applicants who made a claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage EUR 1, 500 under that head (see, Ferla v. Poland, no. 55470/00, § 53, 20 May 2008), plus any tax that may be chargeable.
- VerfGH Berlin, 20.12.2011 - VerfGH 28/11
Verfassungsbeschwerde: Verletzung des Anspruchs auf effektiven Rechtsschutz iSv …
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 3468/20
29/11/2016-ongoing. - OVG Nordrhein-Westfalen, 24.10.2008 - 23/07
Anhörungsrüge wegen des Verstoßes einer Entscheidung gegen den Anspruch auf …
- KAG Freiburg, 10.12.2010 - 10/09
Kostentragungspflicht der DCV als Dienstgeber für die durch die Teilnahme an …
- EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13
KARÁCSONY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00
LAVENTS c. LETTONIE
- EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04
[ENG]
- VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 01.06.2012 - 10/12
- VK Rheinland-Pfalz, 27.05.2005 - 15/05
Nachprüfungsverfahren: Antragsbefugnis trotz fehlender Angebotsabgabe
- EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 43149/10
SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 67482/14
LEBOIS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 33162/10
KILIÇ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 49341/18
UZUN v. TURKEY and 19 other applications
- EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 37328/97
A.B. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 9348/14
RESIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 300/11
C.P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 50805/14
NAUMENKO AND SIA RIX SHIPPING v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 70934/10
GÜNANA c. TURQUIE et 4 autres affaires
- EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 41995/14
CIUPERCESCU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 03.07.2018 - 39747/10
VOYNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 53120/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 52990/08
DAVISON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 07.09.2021 - 40761/19
BARTOLO v. MALTA
- EGMR, 25.08.2026 - 1991/21 Rn. 6 On 18 June 2020 the Constitutional Court declared an individual application lodged by the applicant, in which he had complained, inter alia, of the prohibition on visits at weekends, inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, referring to its case-law in the case of Orhan Alagöz (for more information regarding that case see Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, § 41, 6 December 2022).
With regard to the first ground of the Government's objection, that the applicant had still had the opportunity to receive weekday visits from his children and had not been deprived of other means of communication with them (see paragraph 17 above), the Court notes that a similar objection was already dismissed in Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye (nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, §§ 61-63, 6 December 2022).
- EGMR, 03.06.2025 - 9389/19
UYGUN v. TURKEY
The Court refers to the general principles with regard to the "significant disadvantage" admissibility criterion (see, for example, Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, § 62, 6 December 2022).Rn. 70 In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the domestic authorities did not fulfil their task of balancing the competing interests at stake and preventing a disproportionate interference with the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence (see, mutatis mutandis, Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, §§ 91 and 93, 6 December 2022).
- EGMR - 14058/21 (anhängig)
ÖZER v. TÜRKİYE
On 4 September 2020 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's complaints under Article 8 of the Convention inadmissible, relying on its case-law in the Orhan Alagöz case, which concerned restrictions on weekend visits by school-age children (see, for further information regarding the Orhan Alagöz case, Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, § 41, 6 December 2022).Has there been an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the restriction on weekend visits from both of his children (see Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, §§ 77-79, 6 December 2022)?.
- EGMR - 48125/20 (anhängig)
ALTINTOP v. TÜRKİYE
On 16 September 2020 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's complaints under Article 8 of the Convention inadmissible, relying on its case-law in Orhan Alagöz, which concerned restrictions on weekend visits by school-age children (see, for further information regarding the Orhan Alagöz case, Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, § 41, 6 December 2022).Has there been an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the impugned restriction on weekend visits (see Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, §§ 77-79, 6 December 2022)?.
- EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 35614/19
ILERDE AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE
However, it is an essential part of a prisoner's right to respect for family life that the authorities enable or, if need be, assist him or her to maintain contact with his or her close family (see, among other authorities, Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 116-17, ECHR 2015, and Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, § 77, 6 December 2022). - EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 74601/14
GENÇ v. TURKEY and 1 other application
3468/20 and 18 others, § 62, 6 December 2022). - EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 24074/19
CANAVCI v. TURKEY and 3 other applications
The Government's objection concerning the alleged lack of a significant disadvantage must therefore be dismissed (see, mutatis mutandis, Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, § 63, 6 December 2022). - EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 60846/19
KARA c. TURQUIE
Accordingly, the Court will examine the reasons given by the prison authorities in refusing to dispatch the letter in question and the manner in which the domestic courts addressed those reasons in the light of the applicant's arguments (see, mutatis mutandis, Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, § 85, 6 December 2022). - EGMR, 20.01.2026 - 39386/20
ALTINTOP v. TÜRKIYE and 43 other applications
Rn. 9 The Court notes that similar objections have already been dismissed in Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye (nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, §§ 61-63, 6 December 2022). - EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 28791/10
YÜKSEL v. TURKEY
Rn. 46 The relevant general principles have been summarised in Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway ([GC], no. 37283/13, §§ 202-04, 10 September 2019), Khoroshenko v. Russia ([GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 116-26, ECHR 2015 and the cases cited therein), Deltuva v. Lithuania, no. 38144/20, §§ 42 and 44, 21 March 2023, and Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye (nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, §§ 84 and 88-89, 6 December 2022). - EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 30237/18
GAPO?...ENKO v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 06.06.2023 - 16546/19
KORKMAZ v. TURKEY and 1 other application
- EGMR - 10410/20 (anhängig)
BAYRAM v. TÜRKIYE and 5 other applications
- EGMR - 54634/20 (anhängig)
AYDIN v. TÜRKIYE and 6 other applications
- EGMR - 53573/22 (anhängig)
KRÁTKY v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 29218/20
SAZ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR - 19683/19 (anhängig)
IÇTIN v. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR - 15499/20 (anhängig)
YAVA?ž v. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR - 1920/21 (anhängig)
KARAKAYA v. TÜRKİYE
- EGMR - 52071/20 (anhängig)
CILDAN v. TÜRKİYE
- EGMR - 10968/20 (anhängig)
POLAT v. TÜRKİYE and 3 other applications
- EGMR - 26933/19 (anhängig)
DARAMA v. TÜRKİYE
- EGMR - 55068/19 (anhängig)
EVRENS v. TÜRKİYE
- EGMR - 47370/21 (anhängig)
KÖSMENE v. TÜRKİYE
- EGMR - 39065/20 (anhängig)
ÜSTÜN v. TÜRKİYE and 1 other application
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".