Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN AND IVANOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 11 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and Convention proceedings (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 44079/98
• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 44079/98

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 44079/98

  The Court also reiterates that it must confine its attention as far as possible to the issues raised by the specific case before it (see Mellacher and Others v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169, p. 24, § 41, and Kokkinakis v. Greece, judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, p. 18, § 35).
• EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10126/82

  Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 44079/98

  In this connection, the Court recalls that genuine, effective freedom of peaceful assembly cannot be reduced to a mere duty on the part of the State not to interfere; it is the duty of Contracting States to take reasonable and appropriate measures to enable lawful demonstrations to proceed peacefully (see Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria, judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 139, p. 12, §§ 32-34).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 44079/98

  The Court reiterates that only such costs and expenses as were actually and necessarily incurred in connection with the violation found, and reasonable as to quantum, are recoverable under Article 41. It follows that it cannot make an award under this head in respect of the time the applicants themselves spent working on the case, as it does not represent costs actually incurred by them (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 112, ECHR 2005-..., with further references).
• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29221/95

  STANKOV AND THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 44079/98

  The courts refused, holding that "its statute and programme were directed against the unity of the nation" (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, §§ 10-14, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10522/83

  Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 44079/98

  The Court also reiterates that it must confine its attention as far as possible to the issues raised by the specific case before it (see Mellacher and Others v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169, p. 24, § 41, and Kokkinakis v. Greece, judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, p. 18, § 35).

• EGMR, 19.01.2006 - 59491/00

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In some instances the courts refused to examine appeals against such bans on the same ground (for the period 1994-97 see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, §§ 21, 25, and 29-30, ECHR 2001-IX; for the period 1998-2003 see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44079/98, §§ 12-71, 20 October 2005).

  The Court will nonetheless have regard to these events, as well to certain other interactions between Ilinden and the authorities, as set out in its judgments in the cases of Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden (cited above), The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44079/98, 20 October 2005), Ivanov and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 46336/99, 24 November 2005), and The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden - PIRIN and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 59489/00, 20 October 2005), insofar as this might be relevant to the complaints before it.

  The present application, although part of a group (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, ECHR 2001-IX; The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44079/98, 20 October 2005; The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden - PIRIN and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 59489/00, 20 October 2005; and Ivanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 46336/99, 24 November 2005), illustrates well the principle that, while being attentive to the overall context, the Court confines its attention as far as possible to the issues raised by the specific case before it (see Mellacher and Others v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169, p. 24, § 41; and Kokkinakis v. Greece, judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, p. 18, § 35).

• EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 46336/99

  IVANOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  During the period 1994-2003 these rallies were, with minor exceptions, systematically banned by the authorities (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, ECHR 2001-IX, and The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44079/98, 20 October 2005).

  In the second case - the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria - the Court likewise found the existence of a firm trend of rejecting, on various grounds, the applications for judicial review of the mayoral bans on meetings organised by Ilinden (see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 44079/98, 9 September 2004).

  Firstly, unlike the situation in Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden (nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, ECHR 2001-IX) and The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 44079/98, 20 October 2005), in the case at hand the two events were to take place in Sofia, that is, outside the Pirin region.

• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 74568/12

  Russland verurteilt: 25.000 Euro wegen Festnahme nach Demo

  The guarantees of Article 11 of the Convention do not apply to assemblies where the organisers and participants have violent intentions, incite to violence or otherwise deny the foundations of a "democratic society" (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organization Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 77, ECHR 2001-IX; the United Macedonian Organization Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44079/98, § 99, 20 October 2005; Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia, no. 10877/04, § 45, 23 October 2008; Alekseyev v. Russia, nos.

 
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06

  BERLADIR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In view of these considerations, the Court considers that since the applicants were negatively affected by the situation there has been an interference with the exercise of their freedom of peaceful assembly guaranteed by Article 11 § 1 of the Convention, this right being guaranteed to persons organising as well as participating in a public gathering (see Djavit An, cited above, § 56; Patyi and Others v. Hungary, no. 5529/05, §§ 25-27, 7 October 2008, and The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44079/98, § 103, 20 October 2005).

  At the same time, the Court has also reiterated that where the location of the assembly is crucial to the participants, an order to change it may constitute an interference with their freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the Convention, which is at the heart of the present case (see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44079/98, § 103, 20 October 2005, and Van den Dungen v. the Netherlands, no. 22838/93, Commission decision of 22 February 1995).

• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 48284/07

  SINGARTIYSKI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The relevant provisions of the 1991 Constitution and the 1990 Meetings and Marches Act are set out in paragraphs 48-51 of the Court's judgment in the case of Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria (nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, ECHR 2001-IX), in paragraphs 72-76 of the Court's judgment in the case of United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 44079/98, 20 October 2005) and in paragraphs 24-28 of the Court's judgment in the case of Ivanov and Others v. Bulgaria (cited above).

  The Committee of Ministers concluded the examination of application no. 44079/98 (United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria) and application no. 46336/99 (Ivanov and Others v. Bulgaria) on 8 June 2011, by adopting Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)46, which reads, in so far as relevant:.

• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 37586/04

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN AND IVANOV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)

  The background to the case is described in detail in the Court's judgments in the cases of Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria (nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, ECHR 2001-IX) and United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 44079/98, 20 October 2005).

  The Committee of Ministers concluded the examination of application no. 44079/98 (United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria) and application no. 46336/99 (Ivanov and Others v. Bulgaria) on 8 June 2011, by adopting Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)46, which reads:.

• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 8029/07

  GÜN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  La notion de « réunion pacifique'ne couvre pas les manifestations dont les organisateurs et participants ont des intentions violentes (Stankov et Organisation macédonienne unie Ilinden c. Bulgarie, nos 29221/95 et 29225/95, § 77, CEDH 2001-IX et les références qui y sont citées, et Organisation macédonienne unie Ilinden et Ivanov c. Bulgarie, no 44079/98, § 99, 20 octobre 2005).
• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 3704/13

  KEMAL ÇETIN c. TURQUIE

  La Cour rappelle également que l'article 11 de la Convention ne protège que le droit à la liberté de « réunion pacifique ", notion qui ne couvre pas les manifestations dont les organisateurs et participants ont des intentions violentes (Stankov et Organisation macédonienne unie Ilinden c. Bulgarie, nos 29221/95 et 29225/95, § 77, CEDH 2001-IX, et les références qui y sont citées, et Organisation macédonienne unie Ilinden et Ivanov c. Bulgarie, no 44079/98, § 99, 20 octobre 2005).
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 17599/07

  KIRIL IVANOV v. BULGARIA

  29221/95 and 29225/95, ECHR 2001-IX; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44079/98, 20 October 2005; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden-PIRIN and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 59489/00, 20 October 2005; Ivanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 46336/99, 24 November 2005; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 59491/00, 19 January 2006; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 37586/04, 18 October 2011; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 34960/04, 18 October 2011; Singartiyski and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 48284/07, 18 October 2011; and United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden-PIRIN and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 2), nos.
• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 9117/04

  NOSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  An order to change the time or the place of the assembly may constitute an interference as well (see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44079/98, § 103, 20 October 2005, and Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, §§ 47-51, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR - 37586/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 29496/16

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (No. 3)
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 70502/13

  YORDAN IVANOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 59491/00

  UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN and OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR - 6820/21 (anhängig)

  PARASKOV v. BULGARIA and 3 other applications
• EGMR, 23.03.2023 - 73086/12

  GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 9157/08

  MANANNIKOV v. RUSSIA