Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AUSAD VALIMISED MTÜ v. ESTONIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  AUSAD VALIMISED MTU v. ESTONIA

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 36609/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 40631/14

  The rule that friendly-settlement negotiations are confidential is absolute and does not allow for individual assessment of how much detail has been disclosed (Abbasov and Others v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no 36609/08, § 28, 28 May 2013, and Gorgadze v. Georgia (dec.), no 57990/10, § 18, 2 September 2014, and the case-law cited therein).
• EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 44885/10

  TSONEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 40631/14

  The Court further reiterates that Article 39 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 prohibit parties from making public information concerning friendly-settlement negotiations, either through the media, or by a letter likely to be read by a significant number of people, or by any other means (see Miroļubovs and Others, cited above, § 68; Barreau and Others (dec.), cited above; Mandil (dec.), cited above; Deceuninck (dec.), cited above; Abbasov and Others (dec.), cited above, § 30; and Tsonev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 44885/10, § 26, 8 December 2015).
• EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 5958/07

  BENJOCKI v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 40631/14

  5958/07, 6561/07, 8093/07 and 9162/07, 15 December 2009; and Abbasov and Others (dec.), cited above, § 29).

• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 67037/09

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 40631/14

  However, the Court notes that the direct responsibility of a party for the disclosure of confidential information should be clearly established; a simple suspicion is not enough for an application to be declared inadmissible as an abuse of the right of individual application under Article 35 of the Convention (see Miroļubovs and Others, cited above, § 66; Barreau and Others v. France (dec.), no. 24697/09, 13 December 2011; Mandil v. France (dec.), no. 67037/09, 13 December 2011; and Deceuninck v. France (dec.), no. 67037/09, 13 December 2011).
• EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 38540/07

  BAUCAL-DORDEVIC AND DORDEVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 40631/14

  The Court has on many occasions rejected applications as abusive where the applicants or their representatives had intentionally disclosed to the public information about friendly-settlement negotiations (see, among others, Benjocki (dec.), cited above; Barreau and Others (dec.), cited above; Abbasov and Others (dec.), cited above; Baucal-Đorđević and Đorđević v. Serbia (dec.), no. 38540/07, 2 July 2013; Gorgadze (dec.), cited above; and Tsonev (dec.), cited above).
• EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 57990/10

  GORGADZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 40631/14

  The rule that friendly-settlement negotiations are confidential is absolute and does not allow for individual assessment of how much detail has been disclosed (Abbasov and Others v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no 36609/08, § 28, 28 May 2013, and Gorgadze v. Georgia (dec.), no 57990/10, § 18, 2 September 2014, and the case-law cited therein).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 18496/16

  ESKERKHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  5958/07, 6561/07, 8093/07 and 9162/07, 15 December 2009; Baucal-Đorđević and Đorđević v. Serbia (dec.), no. 38540/07, 2 July 2013; Gorgadze v. Georgia (dec.), no. 57990/10, 2 September 2014; and Ausad Valimised Mtü v. Estonia (dec.), no. 40631/14, 27 September 2016).

  5958/07, 6561/07, 8093/07 and 9162/07, 15 December 2009; Baucal-Đorđević and Đorđević v. Serbia (dec.), no. 38540/07, 2 July 2013; Gorgadze v. Georgia (dec.), no. 57990/10, 2 September 2014; and Ausad Valimised Mtü v. Estonia (dec.), no. 40631/14, 27 September 2016; it also refers to Tsonev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 44885/10, § 26, 8 December 2015.

  The case-law in force until now has required (some reasons are to be found below) substantiated evidence of personal and wilful responsibility on the part of the applicant in disclosing the friendly-settlement proposal to third parties (see Hadrabová and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.); Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, § 66, no. 798/05, 15 December 2009; Gorgadze v. Georgia, § 19; Mandil v. France; and Ausad Valimised Mtu v. Estonia (dec.), § 19, no. 40631/14, 27 September 2016).

• EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  GAFA v. MALTA

  In particular, the Court has rejected applications as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if they were knowingly based on untrue facts or misleading information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; and the cases cited therein) or if they contained offensive language (see, for example, Řehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004) or if the principle of confidentiality of friendly-settlement proceedings had been breached (see, for example, Tsonev v. Bulgaria, (dec.) no. 44885/10, 8 December 2015; and Ausad Valimised Mtü v. Estonia (dec.), no. 40631/14, 27 September 2016).
• EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 25784/09

  CAPSKÝ AND JESCHKEOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  An intentional breach of the rule of confidentiality, may, in certain circumstances, constitute an abuse of the right of application, resulting in declaring the application inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 3 of the Convention (compare Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 798/05, § 66, 15 September 2009; Mandil v. France (dec.), no. 67037/09, 13 December 2011; Ausad Valimised Mtü v. Estonia (dec.), no 40631/14, § 18, 27 September 2016).

• EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 65546/09

  HELDENBURG v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  An intentional breach of the rule of confidentiality, may, in certain circumstances, constitute an abuse of the right of application, resulting in declaring the application inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 3 of the Convention (compare Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 798/05, § 66, 15 September 2009; Mandil v. France (dec.), no. 67037/09, 13 December 2011; Ausad Valimised Mtü v. Estonia (dec.), no 40631/14, § 18, 27 September 2016).
• EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 35511/20

  GHERARDI MARTIRI v. SAN MARINO

  An intentional breach of the rule of confidentiality, may, in certain circumstances, constitute an abuse of the right of application, resulting in declaring the application inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 3 of the Convention (compare Miroļubovs and Others, cited above, § 66; Mandil v. France (dec.), no. 67037/09, 13 December 2011; and Ausad Valimised Mtü v. Estonia (dec.), no 40631/14, § 18, 27 September 2016).
• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 25852/18

  DELIKTAS v. TURKEY

  The rule of confidentiality is absolute and does not allow for individual assessment of how much detail has been disclosed (see Ausad Valimised MTÜ v. Estonia (dec.), no. 40631/14, § 18, 27 September 2016, with further references).
• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 29836/19

  KHMALADZE v. GEORGIA

  5958/07, 6561/07, 8093/07 and 9162/07, 15 December 2009; Baucal-Đorđević and Đorđević v. Serbia (dec.), no. 38540/07, 2 July 2013; Abbasov and Others, § 29, Gorgadze, §§ 19 and 21, Tsonev, § 26, all cited above; Ausad Valimised Mtü v. Estonia (dec.), no. 40631/14, 27 September 2016; and Y and others v. Bulgaria, no. 1666/19, § 25, 8 October 2020).
• EGMR, 06.04.2017 - 2000/09

  ZÁKOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  An intentional breach of the rule of confidentiality, may, in certain circumstances, constitute an abuse of the right of application, resulting in declaring the application inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 3 of the Convention (compare Miroļubovs and Others, cited above, § 66, Mandil, cited above; Ausad Valimised Mtü v. Estonia (dec.), no. 40631/14, § 18, 27 September 2016).
• EGMR, 01.04.2025 - 27166/21

  KALANDIA v. GEORGIA

  5958/07, 6561/07, 8093/07, and 9162/07, 15 December 2009; Baucal-Đorđević and Đorđević v. Serbia (dec.), no. 38540/07, 2 July 2013; Ausad Valimised Mtü v. Estonia (dec.), no. 40631/14, 27 September 2016; and Y and others v. Bulgaria, no. 1666/19, § 25, 8 October 2020; see also Abbasov and Others, § 29; Gorgadze, §§ 19 and 21; and Tsonev, § 26, all cited above).
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 78004/17

  OLAFUR OLAFSSON v. ICELAND

  In particular, the Court has rejected applications as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if they were knowingly based on untrue facts or misleading information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; and the cases cited therein) or if they contained offensive language (see, for example, Řehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004) or if the principle of confidentiality of friendly-settlement proceedings had been breached (see, for example, Tsonev v. Bulgaria, (dec.) no. 44885/10, 8 December 2015; and Ausad Valimised Mtü v. Estonia (dec.), no. 40631/14, 27 September 2016).