Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09 |
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)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[FRE]
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
De Tommaso v. Italy
[20.05.2015]
Papierfundstellen
- NVwZ-RR 2018, 651
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, 08.10.2013 - 18675/09
S.M. c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
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).Monno v. Italy (dec.), no. 18675/09, 8 October 2013.
- EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 40896/98
NIKOLOVA AND 2 OTHER CASES AGAINST BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
It reiterates that house arrest is considered, in view of its degree and intensity (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 104, ECHR 2016), to amount to deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (see N.C. v. Italy, no. 24952/94, § 33, 11 January 2001; Nikolova v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 40896/98, §§ 60 and 74, 30 September 2004; Danov v. Bulgaria, no. 56796/00, §§ 61 and 80, 26 October 2006; and Ninescu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 47306/07, § 53, 15 July 2014).Contrast Danov v. Bulgaria, no. 56796/00, 26 October 2006; Mancini, cited above, § 20; Nikolova v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 40896/98, 30 September 2004; and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 64, ECHR 2004-VIII.
- EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06
STANEV c. BULGARIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, § 57, ECHR 2012; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 115, ECHR 2012; and Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, § 73, ECHR 2010).Ibid., §§ 92-93; see also Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 225, ECHR 2012; Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, § 57, ECHR 2012; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 115, ECHR 2012; and Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, § 73, ECHR 2010.
- EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09
AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, § 57, ECHR 2012; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 115, ECHR 2012; and Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, § 73, ECHR 2010).Ibid., §§ 92-93; see also Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 225, ECHR 2012; Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, § 57, ECHR 2012; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 115, ECHR 2012; and Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, § 73, ECHR 2010.
- EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81
LEANDER c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
In certain circumstances, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may satisfy the requirements of Article 13 (see, among other authorities, Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 77, Series A no. 116). - EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75
LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
The scope of the judicial review should enable the court to take account of all the factors involved, including those concerning the proportionality of the restrictive measure (see, mutatis mutandis, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 60, Series A no. 43). - EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 72118/01
KHAMIDOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
The Court should not act as a fourth-instance body and will therefore not question under Article 6 § 1 the national courts" assessment, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see, for example, Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, §§ 33-34 and 38, 21 March 2000; Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007; AnÄ‘elkovic v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013; and Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 64-65, ECHR 2015). - EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57
LAWLESS c. IRLANDE (N° 3)
- EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 33804/96
MENNITTO v. ITALY
- EKMR, 27.05.1991 - 12541/86
CIANCIMINO contre l'ITALIE
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 30194/09
SHIMOVOLOS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
- EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 26307/95
Entscheidung der Großen Kammer über die an sie nach Art. 43 Europäische …
- EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91
QUINN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09
CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY
- EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 32190/96
LUORDO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 21.03.2000 - 34553/97
DULAURANS c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84
CIULLA v. ITALY
- EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98
MAESTRI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04
S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
- EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99
PEREZ c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 34383/03
GOCHEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05
MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91
Radikalenerlaß
- EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88
KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74
SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
- EGMR, 04.11.2003 - 47244/99
NOVOTKA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04
- EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77
VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75
DEWEER c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 28945/95
T.P. ET K.M. c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
- EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.12.2014 - 48865/99
MORSINK ET 2 AUTRES CAS CONTRE LES PAYS-BAS
- EGMR, 18.01.2017 - 41576/98
GANCI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'ITALIE
- EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08
BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
- EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 19675/06
VILLA CONTRE L'ITALIE
- EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96
BAUMANN v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 47306/07
NINESCU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 28975/05
KHLYUSTOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 4509/08
CIOBANU c. ROUMANIE ET ITALIE
- 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).
- EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 48151/11
FÉDÉRATION NATIONALE DES ASSOCIATIONS ET SYNDICATS DE SPORTIFS (FNASS) ET AUTRES …
Elle rappelle également, comme le fait le Gouvernement, que des mesures spéciales de surveillance avec assignation à résidence constituent en principe des restrictions à la liberté de circulation examinées sous l'angle de l'article 2 du Protocole no 4 (De Tommaso c. Italie [GC], no 43395/09, §§ 83 et suivants, CEDH 2017 (extraits)). - EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 64220/19
Föderation der Aleviten-Gemeinden in Österreich ./. Österreich
There has been a shift in the Court's case-law towards applying the civil limb of Article 6 also to cases which might not initially appear to concern a civil right but which may have direct and significant repercussions on a private right (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 151, 23 February 2017, with further references; see also Denisov, cited above, §§ 51-52, with further references). - EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 49933/20
Coronamaßnahmen in Rumänien: Ein Lockdown ist kein Hausarrest
Les principes généraux 36. Les principes bien établis applicables en la matière, en ce qui concerne la distinction entre privation de liberté et restriction à la liberté de circulation, sont présentés dans les affaires Austin et autres c. Royaume-Uni ([GC], nos 39692/09 et 2 autres, § 57 et 59, CEDH 2012), et De Tommaso c. Italie ([GC], no 43395/09, § 80-81, 23 février 2017). - EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 17895/14
EVERS v. GERMANY
Auch wenn die öffentliche Verhandlung einen in Artikel 6 Abs. 1 der Konvention verankerten Grundsatz darstellt, ist die Pflicht eine solche durchzuführen nicht absolut (siehe De Tommaso ./. Italien [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 43395/09, Rdnr. 163, 23. Februar 2017 und Jussila ./. Finnland [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 73053/01, Rdnrn. 41-42, ECHR 2006-XIV). - EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 42429/16
MEMEDOVA AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA
However, it is nonetheless able to accept the findings of the domestic courts, which cannot be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 170, 23 February 2017).The Court's assessment 67. The Court notes that the present case concerns the applicants' right of liberty of movement, in particular the freedom to leave any country, including their own, as guaranteed by paragraph 2 of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, which implies a right to leave for such country of the person's choice to which he may be admitted (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V; De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 104, 23 February 2017, and Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, § 30, ECHR 2012).
- EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 38121/20
L.B. v. LITHUANIA
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, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21
WALESA v. POLAND
The phrase thus implies, inter alia, that domestic law must be sufficiently foreseeable in its terms to give individuals an adequate indication as to the circumstances in which, and the conditions upon which, the authorities are entitled to resort to measures affecting their rights under the Convention (see Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 117, ECHR 2014 (extracts) with further references, and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, §§ 106-109, 23 February 2017). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 07.09.2023 - C-128/22
NORDIC INFO - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Freizügigkeit - Nationale Maßnahmen …
- EGMR, 10.07.2020 - 310/15
MUGEMANGANGO c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 34367/14
BELKACEM c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 56665/09
KÁROLY NAGY c. HONGRIE
- EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 40119/21
M.L. v. POLAND
- EGMR, 25.01.2024 - 28535/15
KONOPLIANKO v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20
JUSZCZYSZYN v. POLAND
- EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07
BILGEN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 12427/22
A.D. v. MALTA
- EGMR, 01.06.2023 - 19750/13
GROSAM v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 23.03.2023 - C-209/22
Rayonna prokuratura Lovech, TO Lukovit (Fouille corporelle) - Vorlage zur …
- EGMR, 21.11.2019 - 61411/15
Gestrandete Flüchtlingen am Moskauer Flughafen: Gefangen in der Transitzone?
- EGMR, 08.02.2024 - 1162/22
AURAY ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 24203/16
PAGERIE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 41226/09
Türkei verurteilt: Nicht jeder ist ein Terrorist
- EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 27094/20
NURCAN BAYRAKTAR c. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 76521/12
EMINAGAOGLU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 21272/12
BECKER v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 14728/15
DIMITROVA c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 08.06.2023 - 46530/09
URGESI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 49072/21
PANJU c. BELGIQUE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 74209/16
WILLEMS ET GORJON c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 44789/07
REXHEPI SH.P.K. v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 77686/16
ARNOLD ET MARTHALER c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 36889/18
CAMELIA BOGDAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 50170/14
CZERSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 23413/16
J.A. c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 42875/10
BERLAND c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 50432/17
HALKIN KURTULUS PARTISI (HKP) v. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 24867/13
M.K. v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 29447/17
D c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15
ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)
- EGMR, 07.09.2021 - 21094/11
ILASLAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 69291/12
PELEKI c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 49484/22
OBIE DARKO ET MOUVEMENT CITOYEN TOUS MIGRANTS c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 10425/19
P.W. v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 11279/17
OLKHOVIK ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 45431/14
TIMOFEYEV ET POSTUPKIN c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 25.02.2020 - 78108/14
PAIXÃO MOREIRA SÁ FERNANDES c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 32303/13
MIROVNI INSTITUT v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 19258/07
DÖNMEZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 13476/05
OKAN GÜVEN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 25.05.2023 - 21971/21
KAMAL c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13
MURSALIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 19120/15
SERAZIN v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 57818/10
TIBET MENTES AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR - 76967/17 (anhängig)
PERROZZI v. ITALY and 13 other applications
- EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 60104/21
PEREZ c. MONACO
- EGMR, 12.07.2023 - 29259/21
B.Y. c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 15.06.2023 - 31185/18
FANOUNI c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 60785/19
MØRCK JENSEN v. DENMARK
- EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12
GOLUB v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.11.2021 - 37677/16
ABDULLIN c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 15995/07
I.M. RESAN S.R.L. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 26764/12
ROTARU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 26564/16
CLASENS c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10
IMRET v. TURKEY (No. 2)
- EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 46713/10
BAKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28766/06
KIPS DOO AND DREKALOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 39731/12
WOLLAND v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 59040/08
OKTAR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR - 57185/17 (anhängig)
O.H. AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 32997/15
BULIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 16.02.2023 - 23/19
HODOR c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 16.02.2023 - 5943/18
CANDELIER c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 16.02.2023 - 418/19
SCI BARAKA c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 24738/19
GASI AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 40234/16
AMIS TELEKOM DOO v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 17863/13
VLASENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 18945/10
VOSKERCHYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 55674/10
ACHILOV AND IVANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 62157/16
CHERECHES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 62319/10
VARANO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 1009/12
STOYAN KRASTEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 999/19
AFTANACHE v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 28.04.2020 - 36077/14
BEVC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 12.11.2019 - 40797/17
SAAR v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 22479/05
AVYIDI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 6970/15
ZHANG v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 44689/16
MAROUGGAS v. GREECE
- EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 50157/06
MANGÎR AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 50488/13
CANNIZZO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 74441/14
BOTNARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 48818/17
CUMHURIYET HALK PARTISI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 39783/15
BORG v. MALTA
- EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 67414/11
CUPIAL v. POLAND
- EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 61019/19
GARRIDO HERRERO v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 40550/16
A.Z. c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 30286/15
E.V. c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6739/11
BOKHONKO v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 40554/04
VEVECKA v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 30547/14
CONVERTITO ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 29405/16
CONSTANTINOVICI v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 44489/15
DOBRILA AND VODISLAV v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 22781/10
BALACCI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 11551/13
POLTORATSKYY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 46382/13
A.S. ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 33809/16
BADOIU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 80237/13
HARVEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM