Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PEREZ c. FRANCE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
Exception préliminaire rejetée (ratione temporis) Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PEREZ v. FRANCE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
Preliminary objection rejected (ratione materiae) No violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch) - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(französisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 47287/99
- EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99
Wird zitiert von ... (181) Neu Zitiert selbst (15)
- EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74
ARTICO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99
The purpose of the Convention being to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (see Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 16, § 33), this right can only be seen to be effective if the observations are actually "heard", that is duly considered by the trial court. - EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99
Thus, the right to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence cannot be asserted independently: it must be indissociable from the victim's exercise of a right to bring civil proceedings in domestic law, even if only to secure symbolic reparation or to protect a civil right such as the right to a "good reputation" (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 13, § 27; Helmers, cited above, p. 14, § 27; and Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, p. 78, § 58). - EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88
DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99
Simply because the requirements inherent in the concept of a "fair trial" are not necessarily the same in disputes about civil rights and obligations as they are in cases involving criminal trials, as evidenced by the fact that for civil disputes there are no detailed provisions similar to those in Article 6 §§ 2 and 3 (see Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, p. 19, § 32) does not mean that the Court can ignore the plight of victims and downgrade their rights.
- EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99
In other words, the effect of Article 6 is, among others, to place the "tribunal" under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties, without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 19, § 59). - EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91
TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99
Thus, the right to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence cannot be asserted independently: it must be indissociable from the victim's exercise of a right to bring civil proceedings in domestic law, even if only to secure symbolic reparation or to protect a civil right such as the right to a "good reputation" (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 13, § 27; Helmers, cited above, p. 14, § 27; and Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, p. 78, § 58). - EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96
COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99
In any event it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of national legislation (see Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 115, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 35237/97
ADOUD ET BOSONI c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99
In any event, the waiver of such a right must be established, where appropriate, in an unequivocal manner (see, mutatis mutandis, Colozza and Rubinat v. Italy, judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89, pp. 14-15, § 28, and Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, § 46, ECHR 2002-VII). - EGMR, 29.08.2000 - 40490/98
JAHNKE and LENOBLE v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99
Moreover, while Article 6 § 1 does oblige the courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (ibid., p. 20, § 61, and Ruiz Torija v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-A, p. 12, § 29; see also Jahnke and Lenoble v. France (dec.), no. 40490/98, ECHR 2000-IX). - EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73
König ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99
The Court notes that, although it has found the concept of "civil rights and obligations" to be autonomous, it has also held that, in this context, the legislation of the State concerned is not without importance (see König v. Germany, judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, p. 30, § 89). - EGMR, 25.11.1993 - 14282/88
ZANDER v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99
Applying case-law on specific situations unconnected with the issue of civil-party proceedings (Zander v. Sweden, judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-B, and Kerojärvi v. Finland, judgment of 19 July 1995, Series A no. 322), the Court sought to ascertain "whether there was a dispute ('contestation') over a 'right' which [could] be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law". - EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85
HELMERS c. SUÈDE
- EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
TOMASI c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 19.07.1995 - 17506/90
KEROJÄRVI v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96
CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 03.12.2002 - 48221/99
BERGER v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 59433/18
EGMR zu den Rechten von Beamten: Lehrer dürften nicht streiken
La Cour rappelle que si l'article 6 § 1 oblige effectivement les tribunaux à motiver leurs décisions, cette obligation ne peut se comprendre comme exigeant une réponse détaillée à chaque argument (Perez c. France [GC], no 47287/99, § 81, CEDH 2004-I). - EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 25965/04
RANTSEV v. CYPRUS AND RUSSIA
The Court observes at the outset that Article 6 does not give rise to a right to have criminal proceedings instituted in a particular case or to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence (see, for example, Rampogna and Murgia v. Italy (dec.), no. 40753/98, 11 May 1999; Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-I; and Dinchev v. Bulgaria, no. 23057/03, § 39, 22 January 2009). - EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
DE TOMMASO v. ITALY
In particular, it reiterates that it is not its function to deal with alleged errors of law or fact committed by the national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, for example, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, and Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 82, ECHR 2004-I), for instance where they can be said to amount to "unfairness" in breach of Article 6 of the Convention.
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 30765/08
Di Sarno u.a. ./. Italien
- EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 41720/13
NICOLAE VIRGILIU TANASE c. ROUMANIE
The Court further reiterates that, while the Convention does not confer any right, as such, to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-I; and Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 24, 20 March 2009), domestic law can provide for a right for the victim of the offence to claim reparation for the damage caused by that offence by means of civil-party proceedings, that is by allowing the victim to join criminal proceedings as a civil party. - EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 26562/07
Geiseldrama von Beslan - Russland verurteilt
At the same time, neither Article 13 nor any other provision of the Convention guarantees an applicant a right to secure the prosecution and conviction of a third party or a right to "private revenge" (see, mutatis mutandis, Perez v. France ([GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 70-71, ECHR 2004-I). - EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 76240/01
WAGNER ET J.M.W.L. c. LUXEMBOURG
In other words, the effect of Article 6 is, among others, to place the "tribunal" under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties, without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-I, and Albina v. Romania, no. 57808/00, § 30, 28 April 2005). - EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 71545/12
L.E. c. GRÈCE
Partant, la procédure en cause revêt un caractère patrimonial et l'article 6 § 1 trouve à s'appliquer sous son volet civil (voir Perez c. France [GC], no 47287/99, § 70, CEDH 2004-I ; Gorou c. Grèce (no 2) [GC], no 12686/03, § 26, 20 mars 2009). - EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 24340/07
PETRELLA c. ITALIE
Il indique en particulier ce qui suit: la procédure pénale s'est achevée par un classement sans suite, et ce sans que l'inculpé ait été renvoyé en jugement ; par conséquent, le requérant n'a jamais eu la qualité de partie dans la procédure et il n'a jamais pu demander de dédommagement ; compte tenu du fait qu'en droit italien le principe de la prééminence du pénal sur le civil n'est pas reconnu et qu'il était loisible au requérant d'entamer une procédure civile pour obtenir un dédommagement, la procédure pénale n'était pas « directement'déterminante pour le droit de caractère civil de l'intéressé ; ainsi, contrairement à ce qui prévalait dans l'affaire Perez c. France ([GC], no 47287/99, CEDH 2004-I), le volet civil n'était pas étroitement lié au déroulement de la procédure pénale.The right of access to a court is applicable only to the determination of a victim's civil rights and obligations (in fact, the right to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence cannot be asserted independently: it must be indissociable from the victim's exercise of a right to bring civil proceedings in domestic law (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, 12 February 2004)); moreover, the component rights of the procedural guarantees are different between the civil and criminal law areas; the right to a reasonable timeframe applies, however, to both civil and criminal proceedings.
- EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 40238/02
BUCUR ET TOMA c. ROUMANIE
Autrement dit, l'article 6 implique notamment, à la charge du « tribunal ", l'obligation de se livrer à un examen effectif des moyens, arguments et offres de preuve des parties, sauf à en apprécier la pertinence (Perez c. France [GC], no 47287/99, § 80, CEDH 2004-I, et Van de Hurk c. Pays-Bas, 19 avril 1994, § 59, série A no 288). - EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 24989/17
ÐURIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 24133/03
ASSOCIATION DES PERSONNES VICTIMES DU SYSTEME S.C. ROMPETROL S.A. ET S.C. GEOMIN …
- EGMR, 26.03.2024 - 39282/22
MANZITTI AND OTHERS v. ITALY
- EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 10161/13
M. AND M. v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 60108/10
TAMER c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 39326/02
ÇELIK v. TURKEY (No. 2)
- EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 23405/16
S.F. c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 12.07.2018 - 22008/12
ALLÈGRE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 48609/06
NENCHEVA ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13
MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE
- EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 19/05
LAUDETTE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 76943/11
PAROISSE GRÉCO-CATHOLIQUE LUPENI ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 6319/21
FABBRI AND OTHERS v. SAN MARINO
- EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 25018/10
IBRAHIM DEMIRTAS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 40160/12
ZUBAC c. CROATIE
- EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 15227/19
XHOXHAJ v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 25091/07
ENUKIDZE AND GIRGVLIANI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 25.01.2024 - 28535/15
KONOPLIANKO v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 64330/01
ANTUNES ROCHA c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 28634/06
MAIORANO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 24014/05
MUSTAFA TUNÇ ET FECIRE TUNÇ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11
DIMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 21.11.2013 - 23380/09
BOUYID c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 25551/18
TADIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 33349/10
SIDIROPOULOS ET PAPAKOSTAS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03
POROWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 24.02.2015 - 36812/07
MEHMET YAMAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 22965/10
YURTSEVER ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 6459/07
KRIKORIAN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 43903/09
YABANSU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 23607/08
HALAT c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 9907/02
EMINE ARAÇ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 76973/01
MURILLO SALDIAS ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 52391/99
RAMSAHAI AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 54608/09
KOUTSOLIONTOS ET PANTAZIS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 4100/10
SÜKRÜ YILDIZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 28732/09
SANSAL c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 47306/07
NINESCU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 20.03.2009 - 12686/03
GOROU c. GRECE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 31012/19
BAKOYANNI v. GREECE
- EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 38197/16
GÜLEN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 28.04.2020 - 44562/15
ÖZDEMIR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 49756/09
YÜKSEL c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 29.06.2010 - 24216/06
PAWEL GLADKOWSKI c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 19796/14
KRSMANOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 34140/07
KIRINS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 09.02.2012 - 42856/06
KINSKÝ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 60272/08
KARAMAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 49669/07
P.M. v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 49484/22
OBIE DARKO ET MOUVEMENT CITOYEN TOUS MIGRANTS c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 12316/07
POPOVSKI v.
- EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 18851/07
LAGARDÈRE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 54932/08
CHOROMIDIS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 12686/03
GOROU c. GRECE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 69869/01
BONE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 04.04.2023 - 20680/20
MALHOTRA v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 30.03.2023 - 71244/17
DIÉMERT c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 24087/07
YELTEPE c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 18183/09
MARTOCIAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 34085/09
PALIUTIS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 55081/09
ROKAS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 28.04.2015 - 49742/09
BASTÜRK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 32277/07
DEKIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 8759/05
CSOMA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03
MITKUS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 34644/07
ÖZTÜRK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 45190/07
JEANS v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 57678/00
BIRO v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 08.06.2023 - 18326/19
ALONSO SAURA v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 01.12.2022 - 646/17
JURICIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 60277/19
LOUCAIDES v. CYPRUS
- EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 38572/17
POPOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 22616/10
CAPACCHIONE c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 45187/12
HUSSEIN ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 15995/07
I.M. RESAN S.R.L. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 27969/10
BRUNI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 37747/11
TURGAY ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 64347/12
GILBERT c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 2302/12
ÖZTEKIN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 42914/16
SAYGILI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 64289/12
ÖZÜTEMIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 16.03.2017 - 22756/09
LOULI-GEORGOPOULOU c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 51279/12
MENKU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 24891/10
BAKA c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 39008/08
AYDEMIR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 14317/04
OTET c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 38388/04
TOPALOGLU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 47690/07
SERGIYENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 648/05
NICORICI c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 32181/08
RISTIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 13754/02
MOLIE c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 04.06.2009 - 35806/07
KYRIAZIS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 29.03.2007 - 8863/03
GOUSIS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 1855/02
KÖK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.09.2005 - 50899/99
YORDANOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 58116/00
PFLEGER c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 11502/22
AKSOGAN c. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 37937/17
SANNINO v. ITALY
- EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 41394/15
PAUN JOVANOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 40436/16
MARMYLOVA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 42837/19
PICÓN GONZÁLEZ v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 48855/20
TEKEMEN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 76730/12
BALLIKTAS BINGÖLLÜ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 47292/14
KUNSTEK v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 59063/17
DUTU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 64343/13
KHRAMOV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 5154/08
COJOCARU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 55084/17
STEPANOV ET GLAZKOV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 39314/18
COSTENIUC ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 36783/09
ARIK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 52193/09
VOLFOVYCH v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 21297/11
ERDOGAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 78906/11
SAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53480/11
KAYAR v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 12647/11
UYAR v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 78201/11
FOUTRI c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 23597/11
CAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 8337/12
GHERDAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 60666/10
INCI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 54132/07
AKPINAR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 36740/06
PETROV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 04.09.2012 - 31214/09
ÖZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 33065/05
KRASTEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 14582/09
PENTAGIOTIS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 20.10.2010 - 22736/06
POSTOVA BANKA, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 14.05.2009 - 14721/06
VERVESOS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 109/04
POWERACT INDUSTRIES v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 35157/02
KOSITSINA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 42272/98
POTIER c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 51082/99
KARAOSMANOGLU c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 19485/02
REAL ALVES c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 58742/00
PAUSE c. FRANCE
- EGMR - 77427/14 (anhängig)
MIKHAYLOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 15419/17 (anhängig)
REJTING CENTAR SRBIJE v. SERBIA
- EGMR - 32625/15 (anhängig)
COPOS c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 30.03.2023 - 29854/22
RUFFIN ET ASSOCIATION FAKIR c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 61019/19
GARRIDO HERRERO v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 24.02.2022 - 34720/12
MILOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 45240/09
DOROGYKH v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 23.03.2021 - 35262/15
KOMAR v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 49937/08
CARAMAN c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 24412/16
BORNET c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 40554/04
VEVECKA v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 25.07.2019 - 62643/12
DIMITRAS ET GREEK HELSINKI MONITOR c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 36079/18
SAHINLER c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 24.07.2018 - 53183/07
NEGREA ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 13394/12
HAFIKLI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 56686/10
DEMIRAL v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 25731/09
MOLDOVEANU c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 52197/09
PANAIT c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 10077/12
BUZBAY v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 28990/06
POPOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 26118/07
DI PAOLO AND BENEDETTI v. ITALY
- EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 21454/04
MERKULOVA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 11408/02
LYSAYA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 24779/08
ANAGNOSTOU-DEDOULI c. GRECE
- EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 33238/06
FUSU v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 06.05.2010 - 28780/03
BOLGOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 14886/03
MONTEIRO DA CRUZ c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 14615/18
PISMIS v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 31.01.2023 - 67398/14
KARANTALIS v. GREECE
- EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 22717/17
CATANICIU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 53829/10
BASKAYA v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 22879/10
UYKUR v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 58200/10
DEMIR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 4008/05
BACCHINI c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 45196/04
VOLCHKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 52946/12
SIMION c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 36007/07
SHAPOVAL v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 16.11.2010 - 12944/02
KULAKOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 39681/06
ROSOGA c. ROUMANIE
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 47287/99 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PEREZ contre la FRANCE
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 47287/99
- EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
TOMASI c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 47287/99
A la lumière de la jurisprudence de la Cour sur la recevabilité de requêtes émanant de parties civiles (voir, notamment, les arrêts Tomasi c. France du 27 août 1992, série A no 241-A, Acquaviva c. France du 21 novembre 1995, série A no 333-A, Hamer c. France du 7 août 1996, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-III, Aït-Mouhoub c. France du 28 octobre 1998, Recueil 1998-VIII), il relève que la requérante n'a jamais sollicité l'indemnisation du préjudice consécutif à l'infraction dénoncée dans sa plainte, ni même jamais invoqué un tel préjudice, sa seule demande concernant le non-paiement par ses enfants de la pension alimentaire fixée par un jugement du 3 mars 1995.