Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 41463/02, 37509/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,89696) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AFFAIRES FOLDES ET FOLDESNE HAJLIK ET BESSENYEI CONTRE LA HONGRIE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CASES OF FOLDES AND FOLDESNE HAJLIK AND BESSENYEI AGAINST HUNGARY
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 41463/02
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 41463/02, 37509/06
Wird zitiert von ... (2)
- EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 45431/14
TIMOFEYEV ET POSTUPKIN c. RUSSIE
Par ailleurs, fût-elle justifiée au départ, une mesure restreignant la liberté de circulation d'une personne peut devenir disproportionnée et violer les droits de cette personne si elle se prolonge automatiquement pendant longtemps (Földes et Földesné Hajlik c. Hongrie, no 41463/02, § 35, CEDH 2006-XII). - EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 18675/09
S.M. c. ITALIE
Par ailleurs, fût-elle justifiée au départ, une mesure restreignant la liberté de circulation d'une personne peut devenir disproportionnée et violer les droits de cette personne si elle se prolonge automatiquement pendant longtemps (Luordo c. Italie, no 32190/96, § 96, CEDH 2003-IX, Riener précité, § 121, et Földes et Földesné Hajlik c. Hongrie, no 41463/02, § 35, 31 octobre 2006).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 37509/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,53514) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BESSENYEI v. HUNGARY
(englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (4) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 37509/06
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II). - EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 32190/96
LUORDO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 37509/06
The Court reiterates that, even where a restriction on the individual's freedom of movement was initially warranted, maintaining it automatically over a lengthy period of time may become a disproportionate measure, violating the individual's rights (see Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 121, 23 May 2006; Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, ECHR 2003-IX; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, §§ 30-36, ECHR 2006-...; and, mutatis mutandis, Ä°letmis v. Turkey, no. 29871/96, ECHR 2005-XII). - EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 29871/96
ILETMIS v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 37509/06
The Court reiterates that, even where a restriction on the individual's freedom of movement was initially warranted, maintaining it automatically over a lengthy period of time may become a disproportionate measure, violating the individual's rights (see Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 121, 23 May 2006; Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, ECHR 2003-IX; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, §§ 30-36, ECHR 2006-...; and, mutatis mutandis, Ä°letmis v. Turkey, no. 29871/96, ECHR 2005-XII). - EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96
BAUMANN v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 37509/06
Any measure restricting that right must be lawful, pursue one of the legitimate aims referred to in the third paragraph of the above-mentioned Convention provision and strike a fair balance between the public interest and the individual's rights (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V).
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29713/05
STAMOSE v. BULGARIA
In previous cases under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 the Court (or the former European Commission of Human Rights) has been concerned with such bans imposed in connection with pending criminal proceedings (see Schmid v. Austria, no. 10670/83, Commission decision of 9 July 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 44, p. 195; Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, ECHR 2001-V; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, ECHR 2006-XII; Sissanis v. Romania, no. 23468/02, 25 January 2007; Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, 21 October 2008; A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, 31 March 2009; Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 23530/02, 2 July 2009; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, 20 January 2011; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, 17 February 2011; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, 7 June 2011; and Miazdzyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, 24 January 2012), enforcement of criminal sentences (see M. v. Germany, no. 10307/83, Commission decision of 6 March 1984, DR 37, p. 113), lack of rehabilitation in respect of criminal offences (see Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, 10 February 2011), pending bankruptcy proceedings (see Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, ECHR 2003-IX), refusal to pay customs penalties (see Napijalo v. Croatia, no. 66485/01, 13 November 2003), failure to pay taxes (see Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, 23 May 2006), failure to pay judgment debts to private persons (see Ignatov v. Bulgaria, no. 50/02, 2 July 2009, and Gochev v. Bulgaria, no. 34383/03, 26 November 2009), knowledge of "State secrets" (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, ECHR 2006-XV), failure to comply with military-service obligations (see Peltonen v. Finland, no. 19583/92, Commission decision of 20 February 1995, DR 80-a, p. 38, and Marangos v. Cyprus, no. 31106/96, Commission decision of 20 May 1997, unreported), mental illness coupled with a lack of arrangements for appropriate care in the destination country (see Nordblad v. Sweden, no. 19076/91, Commission decision of 13 October 1993, unreported), and court orders prohibiting minor children from being removed to a foreign country (see Roldan Texeira and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 40655/98, 26 October 2000, and Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, 27 September 2011). - EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 43978/09
BATTISTA v. ITALY
- pending criminal proceedings (see Schmidt v. Austria, no. 10670/83, Commission decision of 9 July 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 44, p. 195; Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, ECHR 2001-V; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, ECHR 2006-XII; Sissanis v. Romania, no. 23468/02, 25 January 2007; Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, 21 October 2008; A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, 31 March 2009; Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 23530/02, 2 July 2009; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, 20 January 2011; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, 17 February 2011; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, 7 June 2011; and Miazdzyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, 24 January 2012);. - EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 24733/04
PFEIFER v. BULGARIA
The travel ban imposed on the applicant clearly amounted to such a measure (see, mutatis mutandis, Schmidt v. Austria, no. 10670/83, Commission decision of 9 July 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 44, p. 195; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, § 33, ECHR 2006-XII; Sissanis v. Romania, no. 23468/02, § 64, 25 January 2007; Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, § 22, 21 October 2008; A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, § 47, 31 March 2009; and Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 23530/02, § 70, 2 July 2009). - EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04
MAKEDONSKI v. BULGARIA
The Court reiterates that even where a restriction on the individual's freedom of movement was initially warranted, maintaining it automatically over a lengthy period of time may become a disproportionate measure, violating the individual's rights (see, among others, Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 121, 23 May 2006; Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, ECHR 2003-IX; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, §§ 30-36, ECHR 2006-XII; and Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, §§ 21-24, 21 October 2008).