Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  L.B. v. LITHUANIA

  Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-general (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement;Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to leave a country);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  L.B. v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  DE TOMMASO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 38121/20

  Accordingly, the Court has no reason to doubt that the refusal by the Lithuanian authorities to issue the applicant with an alien's passport constituted an interference with his right to freedom of movement (see, mutatis mutandis, Kerimli v. Azerbaijan, no. 3967/09, § 47, 16 July 2015, and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 104, 23 February 2017, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 38121/20

  The Court observes that the cases in which it accepted that interference with the freedom of movement pursued the legitimate aim of the maintenance of public order concerned, for example, restrictions on travelling abroad imposed on persons who had been charged with criminal offences, pending their prosecution (see A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, § 47, 31 March 2009; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, § 54, 17 February 2011; and Kerimli, cited above, § 49); travel bans on convicted and not yet rehabilitated offenders (see Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, § 63, 10 February 2011); preventive measures, including special supervision, taken against suspected members of the Mafia (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 194, ECHR 2000-IV); or measures which sought to restrict individuals' right to leave the country for the purpose of securing the payment of taxes (see Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 74288/14 and 64568/16, § 92, 14 October 2021, and the case-law cited therein).
• EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 28975/05

  KHLYUSTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 38121/20

  In order to determine whether that refusal was "necessary in a democratic society", the Court will assess whether the domestic authorities provided relevant and sufficient reasons to justify their decision and whether they adequately examined the applicant's individual situation (see Khlyustov v. Russia, no. 28975/05, § 84, 11 July 2013, and Stamose, cited above, § 35).

 
• EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 5871/07

  BERKOVICH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 38121/20

  Any measure by means of which an individual is denied the use of a document which, had he or she so wished, would have permitted him or her to leave the country, amounts to an interference with the rights guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (see Berkovich and Others v. Russia, nos. 5871/07 and 9 others, § 78, 27 March 2018, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13

  MURSALIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 38121/20

  An interference with a person's right to leave any country must be "in accordance with law", pursue one or more of the legitimate aims set out in Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4 and be "necessary in a democratic society" to achieve such an aim (see Mursaliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 66650/13 and 10 others, § 30, 13 December 2018, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 74288/14

  DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS RESOURCE CENTRE AND MUSTAFAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 38121/20

  The Court observes that the cases in which it accepted that interference with the freedom of movement pursued the legitimate aim of the maintenance of public order concerned, for example, restrictions on travelling abroad imposed on persons who had been charged with criminal offences, pending their prosecution (see A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, § 47, 31 March 2009; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, § 54, 17 February 2011; and Kerimli, cited above, § 49); travel bans on convicted and not yet rehabilitated offenders (see Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, § 63, 10 February 2011); preventive measures, including special supervision, taken against suspected members of the Mafia (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 194, ECHR 2000-IV); or measures which sought to restrict individuals' right to leave the country for the purpose of securing the payment of taxes (see Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 74288/14 and 64568/16, § 92, 14 October 2021, and the case-law cited therein).
• EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14480/04

  A.E. v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 38121/20

  The Court observes that the cases in which it accepted that interference with the freedom of movement pursued the legitimate aim of the maintenance of public order concerned, for example, restrictions on travelling abroad imposed on persons who had been charged with criminal offences, pending their prosecution (see A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, § 47, 31 March 2009; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, § 54, 17 February 2011; and Kerimli, cited above, § 49); travel bans on convicted and not yet rehabilitated offenders (see Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, § 63, 10 February 2011); preventive measures, including special supervision, taken against suspected members of the Mafia (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 194, ECHR 2000-IV); or measures which sought to restrict individuals' right to leave the country for the purpose of securing the payment of taxes (see Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 74288/14 and 64568/16, § 92, 14 October 2021, and the case-law cited therein).
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 3967/09

  KERIMLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 38121/20

  Accordingly, the Court has no reason to doubt that the refusal by the Lithuanian authorities to issue the applicant with an alien's passport constituted an interference with his right to freedom of movement (see, mutatis mutandis, Kerimli v. Azerbaijan, no. 3967/09, § 47, 16 July 2015, and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 104, 23 February 2017, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30943/04

  NALBANTSKI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 38121/20

  The Court observes that the cases in which it accepted that interference with the freedom of movement pursued the legitimate aim of the maintenance of public order concerned, for example, restrictions on travelling abroad imposed on persons who had been charged with criminal offences, pending their prosecution (see A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, § 47, 31 March 2009; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, § 54, 17 February 2011; and Kerimli, cited above, § 49); travel bans on convicted and not yet rehabilitated offenders (see Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, § 63, 10 February 2011); preventive measures, including special supervision, taken against suspected members of the Mafia (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 194, ECHR 2000-IV); or measures which sought to restrict individuals' right to leave the country for the purpose of securing the payment of taxes (see Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 74288/14 and 64568/16, § 92, 14 October 2021, and the case-law cited therein).
• EGMR, 09.07.2021 - 6697/18

  Familiennachzug bei subsidiärem Schutz: Kompromiss zwischen Menschenrechten und …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 38121/20

  It also reiterates that the Convention is intended to guarantee rights which are practical and effective, not theoretical and illusory (see, among many other authorities, M.A. v. Denmark [GC], no. 6697/18, § 162, 9 July 2021).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 26764/12

  ROTARU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

• BVerwG, 11.10.2022 - 1 C 9.21

  Unzumutbarkeit der Passbeschaffung bei Erfordernis einer "Reueerklärung"

  Die Weigerung eines Aufnahmestaates, einem subsidiär schutzberechtigten Ausländer ein Reisedokument auszustellen, weil dieser bei den Behörden seines Herkunftsstaates einen Pass beantragen könne, stellt einen Eingriff in die so geschützte Ausreisefreiheit dar (EGMR, Urteil vom 14. Juni 2022 - Nr. 38121/20 [ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0614JUD003812120], L.B. v. Lithuania - Rn. 81).

  Damit trägt sie auch dem Recht auf Freizügigkeit nach Art. 2 Nr. 2 Zusatzprotokoll Nr. 4 zur EMRK Rechnung (vgl. dazu EGMR, Urteil vom 14. Juni 2022 - Nr. 38121/20 - Rn. 81).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 07.09.2023 - C-128/22

  NORDIC INFO - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Freizügigkeit - Nationale Maßnahmen …

  58 Vgl. entsprechend EGMR, 14. Juni 2022, L.B./Litauen (CE:ECHR:2022:0614JUD003812120, § 81).
• EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 61365/16

  S.E.v. SERBIA

  The Court emphasises, however, that Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 is intended to secure to "everyone", regardless of his or her nationality, the freedom to leave any country, including his or her own, and that the corresponding obligations to respect this right are incumbent on the Contracting States (see, with respect to nationals, Rotaru v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 26764/12, § 22, 8 December 2020; with respect to aliens, Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V (extracts); Mia?¼d?¼yk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, § 39, 24 January 2012; and L.B. v. Lithuania, no. 38121/20, § 59, 14 June 2022; and, with respect to persons who may be considered stateless, Mogos and Others v. Romania (dec.), no. 20420/02, 6 May 2004; compare, in the context of Article 3 § 2 of Protocol No. 4, on which only nationals of a respondent State may rely, H.F. and Others v. France [GC], nos.