Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MALOFEYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 10, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Prompt information) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Malofeyeva v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 38676/08

  DISK AND KESK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

  The Court also reiterates that the Contracting States can impose limitations on holding a demonstration in a given place for public security reasons (see Disk and Kesk v. Turkey, no. 38676/08, § 29, 27 November 2012).
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 25691/04

  BUKTA ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

  Therefore, the Government's arguments concerning the alleged non-compliance with the notification requirements of the Public Gatherings Act cannot weigh in the Court's proportionality analysis in the present case (see Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III, and Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012).
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 74552/01

  OYA ATAMAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

  In any event, the Court reiterates that there may be circumstances in which the formal unlawfulness of a peaceful public assembly is not sufficient to justify its dispersal (see Bukta and Others, cited above, §§ 35-36, and Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, §§ 38-42, ECHR 2006-XIII).

 
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08

  FÁBER v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

  Therefore, the Government's arguments concerning the alleged non-compliance with the notification requirements of the Public Gatherings Act cannot weigh in the Court's proportionality analysis in the present case (see Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III, and Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012).
• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 28793/02

  CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S PARTY v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

  However, the Court decides to dispense with ruling on the issue of lawfulness because, in any event, the interference fell short of being necessary in a democratic society, for the reasons set out below (see, for a similar approach, Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, § 53, ECHR 2006-II).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

  The Court also notes at this juncture that, whilst the adjective "necessary", within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 or 11 § 2 is not synonymous with "indispensable", it remains for the national authorities to make the initial assessment of the reality of the pressing social need implied by the notion of "necessity" in this context (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24).
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  NIYAZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

  Furthermore, it cannot be considered on the basis of the available material that the ensuing period of detention was tainted by any irregularities or arbitrariness, which were comparably serious as those identified by the Court in the cases of Menesheva or Tsirlis and Kouloumpas (see also, by way of comparison, Niyazov v. Russia, no. 27843/11, §§ 175-186, 16 October 2012).
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95

  ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

  It is a fundamental aspect of the right to a fair trial that criminal proceedings should be adversarial and that there should be equality of arms between the prosecution and defence (see Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 60, ECHR 2000-II).
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01

  Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

  The Court considers that the seven-day detention was imposed on 7 June 2005 pursuant to the order of a judge who was in principle competent to take the decision in issue (see, by way of comparison, Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 462, ECHR 2004-VII; and Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 72, ECHR 2007-III).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, and the Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was obtained and heard, were fair (see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 88, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02

  HERMI v. ITALY

• VG Berlin, 09.01.2020 - 2 K 170.19

  Verstoß gegen ein Spendenannahmeverbot

  Zur Notwendigkeit gehört, dass die Maßnahme einem dringenden gesellschaftlichen Bedürfnis entspricht (EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30. Mai 2013 - 36673/04, Rn. 132 - Malofeyeva ./. Russland;… Daiber, in: Meyer-Ladewig/Nettesheim, EMRK, 4. Aufl. 2017, Art. 11 Rn. 32 m.w.N.).
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 57818/09

  LASHMANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  It was important for the public authorities to show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention was not to be deprived of its substance (see Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, § 136, 30 May 2013).
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11

  NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA

  In particular, where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (ibid., § 42; see also see Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012; Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 136-37, 30 May 2013, and Kasparov, cited above, § 91).

 
• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 56896/17

  LAURIJSEN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Given the above considerations, the Court finds that the requirements under Article 11 of the Convention were not met because the analysis of applicability of that provision - and, consequently, the assessment of the justification of the interference - were not carried out at the domestic level in a manner consistent with the Convention and the Court's case-law (compare Obote v. Russia, no. 58954/09, § 43, 19 November 2019, and Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, § 141, 30 May 2013; see also, mutatis mutandis, L. v. the Netherlands, no. 45582/99, §§ 40-42, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 29580/12

  NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA

  In particular, where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, § 42, ECHR 2006-XIV; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012; Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 136-37, 30 May 2013; and Kasparov and Others, cited above, § 91).
• EGMR, 16.11.2023 - 28232/22

  FIGURKA v. UKRAINE

  The absence of a prosecuting party at an oral hearing may raise an issue under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention since it may give rise to doubts about the court's objective impartiality by leading the court to take up the prosecution's case and may cause difficulty in the exercise of the defendant's rights to be informed of "the nature and cause of the accusation", to have "adequate time and facilities" for the preparation of defence and by undermining the defendant's ability to put forward an adequate defence in adversarial proceedings (see Thorgeir Thorgeirson, cited above, §§ 16-20 and 46-54; Weh and Weh v. Austria ((dec.), no. 38544/97, 4 July 2002; Ozerov v. Russia, no. 64962/01, §§ 51-58, 18 May 2010; Krivoshapkin v. Russia, no. 42224/02, §§ 41-46, 27 January 2011; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 116-20, 30 May 2013; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-84, 20 September 2016; Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 82-84, 13 February 2018; Mikhaylova v. Ukraine, no. 10644/08, §§ 61-70, 6 March 2018; Hasanov and Majidli v. Azerbaijan, nos.
• EGMR, 05.05.2020 - 71314/13

  CSISZER ET CSIBI c. ROUMANIE

  Elle rappelle toutefois qu'une situation irrégulière ne justifie pas en soi une atteinte à la liberté de réunion (Oya Ataman c. Turquie, no 74552/01, § 39, CEDH 2006-XIV, et Malofeyeva c. Russie, no 36673/04, § 136, 30 mai 2013).
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 51269/07

  PÁKOZDI v. HUNGARY

  The Court recalls that an oral and public hearing constitutes a fundamental principle in Article 6 § 1 (see, among many authorities, Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, § 105, 30 May 2013).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07

  KASPAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  In particular, where demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, § 42, ECHR 2006-XIV; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012; Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 136-37, 30 May 2013; and Kasparov and Others, cited above, § 91).
• EGMR - 70090/10 (anhängig)

  TSERKOV YEVANGELSKIKH KHRISTIAN-BAPTISTOV AND PANASENKO v. RUSSIA

  - When dealing with the administrative offence charges against the applicants, did the national courts carry out a proportionality analysis, weighing the applicants" Article 9 freedom vis-à-vis a legitimate public interest (see, for comparison, Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 95, 27 September 2011, and Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, § 141, 30 May 2013)? Were the applicants given advance notice that their activities were in breach of the law? After breaches had been uncovered, were the applicants afforded time or opportunity to remedy the alleged irregularities?.