Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 25.09.2007 - 42165/02, 466/03 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Wird zitiert von ... (88) Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01
POPOV v. MOLDOVA (No. 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2007 - 42165/02
It further recalls that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1) no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; Rehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; Kérétchachvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006).Moreover, it cannot be excluded that a breach of the principle could, in certain circumstances, justify the conclusion that an application is inadmissible on grounds of abuse of the right of petition (Popov v. Moldova, no. 74153/01, § 48).
- EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 31365/96
VARBANOV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2007 - 42165/02
It further recalls that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1) no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; Rehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; Kérétchachvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006). - EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 25101/05
M. P. u. a. gegen Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2007 - 42165/02
Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007). - EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67208/01
REHÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2007 - 42165/02
It further recalls that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1) no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; Rehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; Kérétchachvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006). - EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 5667/02
KÉRÉTCHACHVILI c. GEORGIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2007 - 42165/02
It further recalls that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1) no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; Rehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; Kérétchachvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006).
- EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11
Burka-Verbot: In Würde verschleiert
42165/02 and 466/03, 25 September 2007, and Deceuninck v. France (dec.), no. 47447/08, 13 December 2011). - EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 25784/09
CAPSKÝ AND JESCHKEOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
The Court has rejected applications as abusive in numerous cases where the applicants or their representatives had intentionally disclosed to the media details from the friendly-settlement negotiations (see Gorgadze v. Georgia (dec.), no. 57990/10, § 21, 2 September 2014; Ausad Valimised MTÜ, cited above, § 10; Tsonev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 44885/10, § 27, 8 December 2015) or where the applicants referred to the Registry's proposal prepared within the framework of the friendly-settlement negotiations in their application for compensation with the domestic authority (see Hadrabová and Hadrabová v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 42165/02, 25 September 2007).42165/02 and 466/03, 25 September 2007.
- EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 18496/16
ESKERKHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Court has stated on multiple occasions that a breach of the confidentiality of friendly-settlement negotiations could, in certain circumstances, justify a conclusion that an application is inadmissible on the grounds of an abuse of the right of petition (see, inter alia, Hadrabová v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 42165/02, 25 September 2007; Benjocki and Others v. Serbia (dec.), nos.The relevant paragraph (number 24) refers to five previous decisions, namely Hadrabová v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 42165/02, 25 September 2007; Benjocki and Others v. Serbia (dec.), nos.
- EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 65546/09
HELDENBURG v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
The Court has rejected applications as abusive in numerous cases where the applicants or their representatives had intentionally disclosed to the media details from the friendly-settlement negotiations (see Gorgadze v. Georgia (dec.), no. 57990/10, § 21, 2 September 2014; Ausad Valimised MTÜ, cited above, § 10; Tsonev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 44885/10, § 27, 8 December 2015) or where the applicants referred to the Registry's proposal prepared within the framework of the friendly-settlement negotiations in their application for compensation with the domestic authority (see Hadrabová and Hadrabová v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 42165/02, 25 September 2007).42165/02 and 466/03, 25 September 2007.
- EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 5310/71
IRELAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
[59] See, for example, Hadrabova v. Czech Republic, n° 42165/02 and n° 466/03, 25 September 2007, where this question was examined in the context of abuse of the right to individual petition. - EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 54337/10
KRYZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
The Government thus believed that the applicant's conduct amounts to an abuse of the right of application (see, mutatis mutandis, Hadrabová v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 42165/02, 25 September 2007).42165/02 and 466/03, 25 September 2007; Cervenáková v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 26852/09, 23 October 2012).
- EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 33636/09
[ENG]
La Cour a fait application de cette disposition dans quatre cas de figure (idem, §§ 62-66): premièrement, dans le cas de requêtes qui se fondaient délibérément sur des faits controuvés en vue de la tromper (Varbanov c. Bulgarie, no 31365/96, § 36, CEDH 2000-X), qu'il y ait eu falsification des documents du dossier (voir, par exemple, Jian c. Roumanie (déc.), no 46640/99, 30 mars 2004) ou omission de l'informer d'un élément essentiel pour l'examen de l'affaire (voir, par exemple, Al-Nashif c. Bulgarie, no 50963/99, § 89, 20 juin 2002, et Kérétchachvili c. Géorgie (déc.), no 5667/02, 2 mai 2006) ou de nouveaux développements importants survenus au cours de la procédure (voir, par exemple, Predescu c. Roumanie, no 21447/03, §§ 25-27, 2 décembre 2008) ; deuxièmement, dans le cas de requêtes où le requérant avait utilisé, dans sa communication avec la Cour, des expressions particulièrement vexatoires, outrageantes, menaçantes ou provocatrices (voir, par exemple, Řehák c. République tchèque (déc.), no 67208/01, 18 mai 2004) ; troisièmement, dans le cas de requêtes où le requérant avait intentionnellement méconnu la confidentialité des négociations relatives au règlement amiable (voir, par exemple, Hadrabová et autres c. République tchèque (déc.), nos 42165/02 et 466/03, 25 septembre 2007, et Deceuninck c. France (déc.), no 47447/08, 13 décembre 2011) ; quatrièmement, dans le cas de requérants qui avaient multiplié des requêtes chicanières et manifestement mal fondées, analogues à leur requête déjà déclarée irrecevable dans le passé (Anibal Vieira & Filhos LDA et Maria Rosa Ferreira da Costa LDA c. Portugal (déc.), nos 980/12 et 18385/12, 13 novembre 2012 ; voir aussi les décisions de la Commission M. c. Royaume-Uni, no 13284/87, 15 octobre 1987, et Philis c. Grèce, no 28970/95, 17 octobre 1996). - EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 23608/16
PETROVY v. RUSSIA
They argued that under Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court the first applicant had an obligation to inform the Court of all circumstances relevant to the application, including about any important developments that had happened after the application had been lodged (they referred to the cases of Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007; Hadrabová and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 42165/02, 25 September 2007; and Červeňáková v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 26852/09, 23 October 2012). - EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 51151/10
BASYUK v. UKRAINE
42165/02 and 466/03, 25 September 2007). - EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 28369/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 37926/05
R & L, S.R.O. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 11549/02
FALIMONOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 6232/20
Micheil Saakaschwili
- EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 35511/20
GHERARDI MARTIRI v. SAN MARINO
- EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 12674/07
VARTIC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 10.09.2026 - 9188/25
HOUZVICKA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 30044/10
DIMOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 21455/10
BOUSIOU c. GRECE
- EGMR, 13.06.2013 - 14758/08
SIVOGRAK AND ZENOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 13112/07
- EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 16287/13
GRAMMOSENIS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 12266/07
PEKÁRNY A CUKRÁRNY KLATOVY, A.S. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 26446/06
KHVICHIA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 26216/07
[FRE]
- EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 5958/07
BENJOCKI v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 25852/18
DELIKTAS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 32897/16
LOPEZ MARTINEZ c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 1666/19
Y AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 26.05.2015 - 35044/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 52943/10
DAMJANAC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 3172/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 26852/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 47447/08
[FRE]
- EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 67037/09
[FRE]
- EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 44328/05
PIRTSKHALAISHVILI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 29836/19
KHMALADZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 57737/19
MIHAILESCU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 27.09.2022 - 32916/20
CAMELIA BOGDAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 56335/10
KOVALEVA v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
- EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 8294/15
ISTRATOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 60309/10
ÖZTÜRK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 41444/05
[FRE]
- EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 17969/10
SELINA v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 50636/09
BOZIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 15152/12
VEISS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 38540/07
BAUCAL-DORDEVIC AND DORDEVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 33052/05
LOZINSCHI v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 17.02.2026 - 54323/22
NÉMETH v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 01.04.2025 - 27166/21
KALANDIA v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 11.06.2024 - 37659/22
KOUKAKIS v. GREECE
- EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 50318/20
CESUR c. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 45561/17
LECHOWICZ v. POLAND
- EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 40104/19
YORDANOVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 40063/19
DOBREVA-JONSSON v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 27.09.2022 - 39983/19
SHAIB v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 27.09.2022 - 39998/19
TSVETKOVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 27.09.2022 - 39997/19
RUSEVI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 20305/20
RATICOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 17959/11
LTD SONY TSENTRI TBILISI and LTD LAZERI-2 TBILISSI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 54127/16
PLICHTA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 64540/12
METREVELI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 64623/12
KHUTSISHVILI AND LLC KARTU MSHENEBELI v. GEORGIA and 1 other application
- EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 35868/10
KERDIKOSHVILI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 60249/09
KAVKASIONI LTD v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 4831/09
GORODNYK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 08.09.2015 - 62335/10
MICHEV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 57960/11
VOROZHBA c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 62653/10
GODOY RUIZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 24697/09
BARREAU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 13272/07
STRELTOV v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 7022/06
ZIROVNICKY c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 16282/08
[FRE]
- EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 37619/04
LESNINA VELETRGOVINA DOO v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
- EGMR, 25.09.2025 - 11500/23
IOSIF v. CYPRUS
- EGMR, 19.09.2024 - 14025/23
WEGNEROVÁ AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 64232/16
NISEVIC TADIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 59441/13
SZÉKELY v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 24.05.2018 - 16142/08
BURLAKOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 26.09.2017 - 30700/13
SKUPA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 33201/07
DIAKONIDZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 40099/09
DATUNASHVILI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 33137/14
GLAVAS v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 70758/11
RÁDAY v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 10.01.2023 - 458/19
CIORNEI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 36687/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 73485/01
VASILEVSKIY c. LETTONIE
- EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 55952/13
GÜLER AND KEKEC v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 59472/11
KOPYTOWSKI c. POLOGNE
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| RG, 03.03.1904 - Rep. I. 466/03 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Wolters Kluwer(Abodienst, Leitsatz/Tenor frei) (Leitsatz und Volltext)
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Papierfundstellen
- RGZ 57, 270
Wird zitiert von ...
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".