Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2017,3579
EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09 (https://dejure.org/2017,3579)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.02.2017 - 43395/09 (https://dejure.org/2017,3579)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. Februar 2017 - 43395/09 (https://dejure.org/2017,3579)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,3579) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DE TOMMASO v. ITALY

    Remainder inadmissible;Struck out of the list (Article 37-1-c - Continued examination not justified);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-general (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement);Violation of Article 6 - Right ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DE TOMMASO c. ITALIE

    Partiellement irrecevable;Radiation du rôle (Article 37-1-c - Poursuite de l'examen non justifiée);Violation de l'article 2 du Protocole n° 4 - Liberté de circulation-général (article 2 al. 1 du Protocole n° 4 - Liberté de circulation);Violation de l'article 6 ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DE TOMMASO v. ITALY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

    [DEU] Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-general (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil ...

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges (2)

Papierfundstellen

  • NVwZ-RR 2018, 651
 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (109)Neu Zitiert selbst (46)

  • EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

    RAIMONDO v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
    They pointed out that, in accordance with the Court's settled case-law (referring to Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 39, Series A no. 281-A; Villa v. Italy, no. 19675/06, §§ 41-43, 20 April 2010; and Monno v. Italy (dec.), no. 18675/09, §§ 21-23, 8 October 2013), obligations resulting from preventive measures did not amount to deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention, but merely to restrictions on liberty of movement.

    Since the Guzzardi judgment, the Court has dealt with a number of cases (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 39, Series A no. 281-A; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 193, ECHR 2000-IV; Vito Sante Santoro v. Italy, no. 36681/97, § 37, ECHR 2004-VI; and also, mutatis mutandis, Villa v. Italy, no. 19675/06, §§ 43-44, 20 April 2010, and Monno v. Italy (dec.), no. 18675/09, §§ 21-23, 8 October 2013) concerning special supervision together with a compulsory residence order and other associated restrictions (not leaving home at night, not travelling away from the place of residence, not going to bars, nightclubs, amusement arcades or brothels or attending public meetings, not associating with individuals who had a criminal record and who were subject to preventive measures).

    To substantiate this, the majority refer to Guzzardi (cited above, § 108) and Raimondo v. Italy (no. 12954/87, 22 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 281-A).

    See Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 195, ECHR 2000-IV; Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 39, Series A no. 281-A; and Ciancimino v. Italy, no. 12541/86, Commission decision of 27 May 1991, Decisions and Reports 70. In the domestic case-law, see, for example, Court of Cassation, United Sections, 3 July 1996, Simonelli, and Court of Cassation, Section I, 17 January 2008, no. 6613.

  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

    GUZZARDI v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
    In his submission, the present case was comparable to Guzzardi v. Italy (6 November 1980, Series A no. 39), in which the Court had found that in view of the particular circumstances of the case, the applicant - who had been subjected to similar measures to those imposed on the applicant in the present case - had been deprived of his liberty, and that there had been a violation of Article 5.

    In a subsequent case brought by the same applicant, the Court concluded that in view of the particular circumstances of the case, the applicant had been "deprived of his liberty" within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (see Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 95, Series A no. 39).

    In particular, the applicant in the instant case, unlike the one in Guzzardi (6 November 1980, § 108, Series A no. 39), was indeed not forced to live on an island, but the "preventive" measures were imposed on him for a much longer period - 221 days (and nights) as against 165 days in Guzzardi.

    Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39.

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
    The Court notes that since the Guzzardi case, it has dealt with a number of cases (Raimondo, cited above, § 39; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 193, ECHR 2000-IV; Vito Sante Santoro v. Italy, no. 36681/97, § 37, ECHR 2004-VI; see also, mutatis mutandis, Villa, cited above, §§ 43-44, and Monno, cited above, §§ 22-23) concerning special supervision together with a compulsory residence order and other associated restrictions (not leaving home at night, not travelling away from the place of residence, not going to bars, nightclubs, amusement arcades or brothels or attending public meetings, not associating with individuals who had a criminal record and who were subject to preventive measures).

    Since the Guzzardi judgment, the Court has dealt with a number of cases (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 39, Series A no. 281-A; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 193, ECHR 2000-IV; Vito Sante Santoro v. Italy, no. 36681/97, § 37, ECHR 2004-VI; and also, mutatis mutandis, Villa v. Italy, no. 19675/06, §§ 43-44, 20 April 2010, and Monno v. Italy (dec.), no. 18675/09, §§ 21-23, 8 October 2013) concerning special supervision together with a compulsory residence order and other associated restrictions (not leaving home at night, not travelling away from the place of residence, not going to bars, nightclubs, amusement arcades or brothels or attending public meetings, not associating with individuals who had a criminal record and who were subject to preventive measures).

    See Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 195, ECHR 2000-IV; Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 39, Series A no. 281-A; and Ciancimino v. Italy, no. 12541/86, Commission decision of 27 May 1991, Decisions and Reports 70. In the domestic case-law, see, for example, Court of Cassation, United Sections, 3 July 1996, Simonelli, and Court of Cassation, Section I, 17 January 2008, no. 6613.

  • EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

    DENISOV v. UKRAINE

    These examples include disciplinary proceedings concerning the right to practise a profession (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, §§ 47 and 48, Series A no. 43, and Philis v. Greece (no. 2), 27 June 1997, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV), disputes involving the right to a healthy environment (see Ta?Ÿkin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 133, ECHR 2004-X), prisoners" detention arrangements (see Ganci v. Italy, no. 41576/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-XI, and Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 103, ECHR 2009), the right of access to investigation documents (see Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, §§ 143-45, 26 July 2012), disputes regarding the non-inclusion of a conviction in a criminal record (see Alexandre v. Portugal, no. 33197/09, §§ 54 and 55, 20 November 2012), proceedings for the application of a non-custodial preventive measure (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 154, ECHR 2017 (extracts)), and the revocation of a civil servant's security clearance within the Ministry of Defence (see Regner, cited above, §§ 113-27).
  • EGMR, 21.11.2019 - 47287/15

    Transitzonen grundsätzlich erlaubt

    The difference between deprivation and restriction of liberty is one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 80, 23 February 2017, with the references therein; see also Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, § 36, 11 October 2016).
  • EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 43868/18

    WA BAILE c. SUISSE

    Par conséquent, bien que les États contractants jouissent d'une certaine latitude quant à la manière d'honorer les obligations que leur impose cette disposition, il faut qu'existe au niveau interne un recours permettant à l'autorité nationale compétente de connaître du contenu du grief fondé sur la Convention et d'offrir le redressement approprié (voir, par exemple, Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase c. Roumanie [GC], no 41720/13, § 217, 25 juin 2019, Soering c. Royaume-Uni, 7 juillet 1989, § 120, série A no 161, et De Tommaso c. Italie [GC], no 43395/09, § 179, 23 février 2017).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht