Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ÇÖLGEÇEN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-general (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 62649/10

  Türkei verurteilt - Aleviten diskriminiert

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 50124/07

  Following this tacit refusal the applicants could have brought administrative proceedings with a view to airing this particular complaint before the national authorities (see, for example, İzzettin Doğan and Others v. Turkey [GC], no. 62649/10, § 12, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 25.02.1982 - 7511/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 50124/07

  In spite of its importance, this right is not, however, absolute, but may be subject to limitations; these are permitted by implication since the right of access "by its very nature calls for regulation by the State" (see Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1982, § 41, Series A no. 48).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 29865/96

  Diskriminierung türkischer Ehefrauen durch Verpflichtung zur Tragung des Namens …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 50124/07

  Even assuming that this remedy offered only a remote prospect of success, it would not have been a futile step and would have had the effect at least of postponing the beginning of the six-month period (see, in particular, Ünal Tekeli v. Turkey, no. 29865/96, § 38, ECHR 2004-X (extracts)).

• EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 50124/07

  As in other cases involving sanctions imposed on individuals who used their constitutional right to file an objection, we consider therefore that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 10 of the Convention (see Döner and Others v. Turkey, no. 29994/02, § 79, 7 March 2017; see also the separate opinion of Judge Cabral Barreto in İrfan Temel and Others, cited above).
• EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 32567/06

  WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 50124/07

  In assessing whether an applicant has complied with Article 35 § 1, it is important to recall that the requirements contained in that Article concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated (see Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 43331/09

  CHAKKAS AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 50124/07

  43331/09, 27877/10 and 36144/11, § 19, 20 October 2015).
• EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 40385/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 50124/07

  The imposition of disciplinary penalties is an integral part of the process whereby a school seeks to achieve the object for which it was established, including the development and moulding of the character and mental powers of its pupils (see, in particular, Ali v. the United Kingdom, no. 40385/06, § 54, 11 January 2011 and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 25851/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 50124/07

  The Court reiterates that the guarantees of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 apply to existing institutions of higher education within the member States of the Council of Europe and that access to any institution of higher education existing at a given time is an inherent part of the right set out in the first sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (see Tarantino and Others v. Italy, nos. 25851/09, 29284/09 and 64090/09, § 43, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 19.06.2006 - 23130/04

  Menschenrechtskonvention : Unzulässigkeit der Beschwerde wegen Missbrauchs des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 50124/07

  The submission of incomplete and thus misleading information may also amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation has been provided for the failure to disclose that information (see Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006, and Komatinović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013).
• EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 75381/10

  KOMATINOVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 50124/07

  The submission of incomplete and thus misleading information may also amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation has been provided for the failure to disclose that information (see Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006, and Komatinović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013).
• EGMR, 20.03.2003 - 62560/00

  HOFFMAN KARLSKOV v. DENMARK

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 25253/08

  RUSEN BAYAR v. TURKEY

  The fact that the applicant did not submit other documents that concerned the same point cannot be considered to have constituted an abuse of the right of petition within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, which is an exceptional measure and has so far been applied only in a limited number of cases (see Çölgeçen and Others v. Turkey, nos. 50124/07 and 7 others, § 42, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 11.06.2019 - 1964/07

  [FRE]

  In other words, this was a futile step which was not capable of postponing the beginning of the six-month period (compare Çölgeçen and Others v. Turkey, nos. 50124/07 and 7 others, § 65, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 45903/08

  [ENG]

  By judgment no. P-1931/08 of 2 November 2010 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court dismissed an action brought by a pensioner as the plaintiff against the Croatian Pension Fund and HPB-Invest as defendants whereby she sought: (a) declaration that she had become a member of the Pensioners" Fund and acquired a certain number of shares in it corresponding to the pension debt owed to her, and (b) payment of compensation in accordance with Model B provided for by the Pensioners" Fund Act.

• EGMR, 09.12.2025 - 19035/21

  H.H. v. FINLAND

  The redress afforded must be appropriate and sufficient (ibid., § 116), which may also depend on the level of compensation awarded at domestic level (see, for example, Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, § 262, ECHR 2012 (extracts)), it being understood that in some circumstances the granting of compensation may be the only possible or practical means whereby redress can be given to the individual for the wrong he or she has suffered (see, for example, Çölgeçen and Others v. Turkey, nos. 50124/07 and 7 others, § 40, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 77370/16

  I.I. AND M.S. v. BULGARIA

  50124/07 and 7 others, § 41, 12 December 2017; Alpeyeva and Dzhalagoniya v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 10970/12

  GRIGORYEV AND IGAMBERDIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  The domestic courts acknowledged a violation of the second applicant's right to freedom of expression on account of her unlawful prosecution for an offence of an administrative nature, and awarded her compensation for non-pecuniary damage of EUR 250. Even assuming that there was an "interference" and that the second applicant can still claim to be the victim of a breach of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the mere fact of being prosecuted, which lasted some time, albeit without incurring any other adverse consequences in connection with the prosecution (compare Dilipak v. Turkey, no. 29680/05, §§ 44-51, 15 September 2015, and Çölgeçen and Others v. Turkey, nos. 50124/07 and 7 others, §§ 39-40, 12 December 2017), the Court considers that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 63041/13

  FARRUGIA v. MALTA

  50124/07 and 7 others, §§ 62-63, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 12398/10

  TÜCER v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates that as the applicant is entitled to lodge an application for the reopening of criminal proceedings following the entry into force of Law no. 7145 on 31 July 2018, a fresh examination of the case would be possible, and that the aforementioned remedy is capable of providing redress in respect of his above complaints under Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the Convention (see Çölgeçen and Others v. Turkey, nos. 50124/07 and 7 others, §§ 32-57, 12 December 2017 where the Court found a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, read in the light of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on, inter alia, the co-accused for having petitioned the university authorities to provide optional Kurdish language courses).
• EGMR, 18.06.2024 - 23903/20

  E.S. v. FINLAND

  The redress afforded must be appropriate and sufficient (ibid., § 116), which may also depend on the level of compensation awarded at domestic level (see for example, Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, § 262, ECHR 2012 (extracts)), it being understood that in some circumstances the granting of compensation may be the only possible or practical means whereby redress can be given to the individual for the wrong he or she has suffered (see, for example, Çölgeçen and Others v. Turkey, nos. 50124/07 and 7 others, § 40, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 02.05.2019 - 36458/02

  IRFAN TEMEL ET AUTRES CONTRE LA TURQUIE ET 1 AUTRE AFFAIRE

  50124/07+.