Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOLTYSYAK v. RUSSIA

  Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of P4-2 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00

  TIMISHEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4663/05

  55762/00 and 55974/00, 30 March 2004; and Napijalo v. Croatia, no. 66485/01, § 68, 13 November 2003).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4663/05

  Referring to the applicant's status as a military serviceman and to the fact that the matter was examined in military courts, the Government claimed that the two conditions established by the Court for excluding the protection embodied in Article 6 of the Convention had been fulfilled (here they cited Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IV) and that the complaint was therefore incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12945/87

  HADJIANASTASSIOU v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4663/05

  Even though the Court has previously accepted that the rights of military personnel may, in certain circumstances, be restricted to a greater degree than would be permissible in the case of civilians (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, §§ 73 and 103, Series A no. 22; Kalaç v. Turkey, 1 July 1997, § 28, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV; Larissis and Others v. Greece, 24 February 1998, §§ 50 and 51, Reports 1998-I; Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, 16 December 1992, §§ 39 and 46, Series A no. 252; and Pasko v. Russia, no. 69519/01, § 86, 22 October 2009), such a restriction must in all cases be commensurate with its protective function.
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4663/05

  It follows that an application to the Interagency Commission does not give the person employing it a personal right to the exercise by the State of its supervisory powers, and that such an appeal does not therefore constitute an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 of the Convention (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 59-60, 1 March 2007, and Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 47, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00

  BARTIK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4663/05

  In particular, a measure by means of which an individual is denied the use of a document which, had he so wished, would have permitted him to leave the country, amounts to an interference within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, § 36, ECHR 2006-XV; Timishev v. Russia (dec.), nos.

• EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 48151/11

  FÉDÉRATION NATIONALE DES ASSOCIATIONS ET SYNDICATS DE SPORTIFS (FNASS) ET AUTRES …

  Quant aux atteintes à la liberté de quitter n'importe quel pays y compris le sien, il indique qu'elles concernent des interdictions administratives ou judiciaires, telles qu'une obligation d'autorisation préalable pour quitter le pays (Diamante et Pelliccioni c. Saint-Marin, no 32250/08, 27 septembre 2011), la confiscation d'un passeport (Baumann, précité ; Nalbantski c. Bulgarie, no 30943/04, 10 février 2011) ou le refus de délivrer un document de voyage (Soltysyak c. Russie, no 4663/05, 10 février 2011 ; Ignatov c. Bulgarie, no 50/02, 2 juillet 2009).
• EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 28975/05

  KHLYUSTOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has examined the proportionality of travel restrictions which were imposed in various contexts: a travel ban imposed as a measure of police supervision of a person suspected of having connections with the Mafia (see Labita, cited above, §§ 193-197); the seizure, as part of the on-the-spot investigation, and subsequent confiscation of a passport of a person who was neither prosecuted nor considered to be a witness in the criminal proceedings (see Baumann, cited above, §§ 65-67); a prohibition on a bankrupt moving away from his place of residence for the duration of the bankruptcy proceedings (see Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, §§ 96-97, ECHR 2003-IX); the seizure of the applicant's passport for refusal to pay a fine for a customs offence (see Napijalo v. Croatia, no. 66485/01, §§ 78-82, 13 November 2003); an obligation not to abscond imposed on a suspect pending criminal proceedings against him (see, among many other examples, Fedorov and Fedorova v. Russia, no. 31008/02, §§ 39-47, 13 October 2005; Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, §§ 59-67, 22 November 2005; Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, §§ 90-97, 7 December 2006; Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, §§ 60-69, 10 July 2008; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, §§ 39-46, 20 January 2011; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, §§ 55-58, 17 February 2011; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, §§ 47-52, 7 June 2011; and Miazdzyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, §§ 33-42, 24 January 2012); travel restrictions imposed for refusal to pay a tax debt (see Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, §§ 118-130, 23 May 2006); travel restrictions imposed on account of knowledge of State secrets (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, §§ 44-52, ECHR 2006-XV, and Soltysyak v. Russia, no. 4663/05, §§ 46-54, 10 February 2011); court orders prohibiting minor children from being removed to a foreign country (see Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, §§ 214-215, 27 September 2011); and a travel ban imposed on account of a breach of the immigration rules of another country (see Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, §§ 33-37, 27 November 2012).
• EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 61365/16

  S.E.v. SERBIA

  However, the Court and the Commission have previously been called upon to examine situations in which an applicant had already acquired a travel document which was subsequently seized, which he or she was arbitrarily denied the use of, or which was not reissued merely as a result of a decision by the State authorities to restrict or deny his or her right to leave a country on account of a travel ban/sanction or because of his or her failure to comply with the relevant legal or factual requirements prescribed by law (see, among many authorities, Peltonen, cited above, concerning a refusal to issue a passport to a Finnish national to ensure the performance of military service; Baumann, cited above, § 63, and A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, §§ 47-50, 31 March 2009, in the context of a pending criminal prosecution; Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 110, 23 May 2006, and Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, § 30, ECHR 2012, concerning a travel ban and passport retention on the basis of a nine-year tax dispute and breaches of immigration laws respectively; Soltysyak v. Russia, no. 4663/05, §§ 37-38, 10 February 2011, and Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, §§ 35-36, ECHR 2006-XV, in the context of refusal to issue a travel document to nationals because of knowledge of "State secrets"; Battista v. Italy, no. 43978/09, §§ 26 and 37, ECHR 2014, concerning an inability, owing to a failure to pay child maintenance, to obtain a new identity document valid for travel abroad; Roldan Texeira and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 40655/98, 26 October 2000, and Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, §§ 212-215, 27 September 2011, in the context of restrictions imposed by court orders or the police on minor children travelling abroad to protect their interests or those of their parents).
• EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 5871/07

  BERKOVICH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is supervising the execution of the Court's judgments in the cases of Bartik v. Russia (no. 55565/00, ECHR 2006-XV) and Soltysyak v. Russia (no. 4663/05, 10 February 2011), in which the Court found a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 on account of an unjustified restriction on the applicants" right to leave Russia.