Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROSCA STANESCU et ARDELEANU contre la ROUMANIE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 34 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROSCA STANESCU and ARDELEANU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 34 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88

  OPEN DOOR AND DUBLIN WELL WOMAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2002 - 35441/97

  The Court points out that Article 34 entitles individuals to contend that a law violates their rights by itself, in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if they run the risk of being directly affected by it (see, among many other authorities, Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, judgment of 29 October 1992, Series A no. 246, p. 22, § 44, Association Ekin v. France, (dec.), no. 39288/98, 18 January 2000, unreported, and Krone-Verlag GmbH et al v. Austria, (dec.), no. 31564/96, 7 March 2000, unreported).

• EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 32467/22

  MITTENDORFER v. AUSTRIA

  The Court thus concludes that the applicant was neither at risk of being affected by the Vaccination Act when he lodged his application with the Court, given that it had already been suspended by that stage, nor that he will face such a risk in the future, given that the Act has since been repealed (compare the circumstances in Ro?Ÿca Stanescu and Others v. Romania (dec.), no. 35441/97, ECHR 2002-III, where two journalists complaining about a provision of the Romanian Criminal Code that criminalised insults to authority could not claim to be victims because they were no longer at risk of being affected by the impugned provision of the Criminal Code because of its non-applicability).
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 39735/03

  TANRIKULU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Dans ces circonstances, la Cour considère que les requérants ne sauraient se prétendre victimes d'une violation ni de l'article 10 ni des autres articles invoqués, et que la requête doit dès lors être déclarée irrecevable pour incompatibilité ratione personae avec les dispositions de la Convention, en application de l'article 35 § 3 et 4 de la Convention (Rosca Stanescu et autres c. Roumanie (déc.), no 35441/97, CEDH 2002-III, Sentuna c. Turquie (déc.), no 71988/01, 25 janvier 2007, Orhan Sapan, précité, Fırat Çaralan c. Turquie (déc.), no 28889/02, 28 novembre 2007).