Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 53157/99, 53247/99, 56850/00, 53695/00 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LEDYAYEVA, DOBROKHOTOVA, ZOLOTAREVA and ROMASHINA v. RUSSIA
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention and domestic proceedings (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 16.09.2004 - 53157/99
- EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 53157/99, 53247/99, 56850/00, 53695/00
Wird zitiert von ... (4) Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 14967/89
GUERRA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 53157/99
As in the case Fadeyeva v. Russia (55723/00, judgment of 9 June 2005), without casting doubt on the Court's finding of a violation of Article 8, 1 would prefer to describe the violation as unjustified interference with the applicant's private life without mentioning "right to home" as it was done in the Guerra and Others v. Italy case (judgment of 19 February 1998, 14967/89, Reports 1998-I). - EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98
SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 53157/99
Subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, the respondent State remains free to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Articles 41 and 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the present judgment (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII), in particular, with the two alternative solutions examined by the Court (see paragraph 110 above). - EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 53157/99
The Government concluded that these aspects of the present cases permitted to distinguish them from the case López Ostra v. Spain (judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, p. 46-47, § 16-22), where the plant had operated without the appropriate licence and had been finally closed. - EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 53157/99
Moreover, the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and, in this connection, the distribution of the burden of proof are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts, the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, 6 July 2005, with further references). - EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 11931/03
TETERINY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 53157/99
The population lived in those flats as life-long tenants under "social tenancy agreements" (for further details see Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, § 19 et seq.,, 30 June 2005).
- EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 31612/09
PAVLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
As in other cases concerning serious industrial pollution, in assessing whether the national authorities performed a balancing exercise in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention, the Court in the present case will examine primarily, although not exclusively, the findings of the domestic courts (see Ledyayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 53157/99 and three others, § 90, 26 October 2006,).Their homes are dispersed across the whole city at remote distances, ranging from 2 to 15 km from the polluting sites (contrast Fadeyeva, cited above, and Ledyayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 53157/99 and 3 others, 26 October 2006).
- EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05
[ENG]
53157/99, 53247/99, 56850/00 and 53695/00, 16 September 2004; and Fadayeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 55723/00, 16 October 2003, the last two as regards the complaints raised under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention). - EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 12853/03
IVAN ATANASOV v. BULGARIA
The Court made similar findings in a later case concerning the same iron smelter (see Ledyayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 53157/99, 53247/99, 53695/00 and 56850/00, §§ 96-100, 26 October 2006). - EGMR, 23.03.2006 - 63501/00
KONOVALOV v. RUSSIA
53157/99, 53695/00, 53247/99 and 56850/00, 16 September 2004).
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
| EGMR, 16.09.2004 - 53157/99, 53247/99, 56850/00, 53695/00 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 16.09.2004 - 53157/99, 53247/99, 56850/00, 53695/00
- EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 53157/99
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00
FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2004 - 53157/99
First, the Court recalls that in the similar case of Fadeyeva v. Russia (dec., no. 55723/00, 16 October 2003), the Court rejected the applicant's complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention as being manifestly ill-founded.In view of the parties' observations, the Court considers that the issues raised in this part of the applications concern complex questions of fact and law which require an examination of the merits (see also Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, 16 October 2003).
- EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2004 - 53157/99
The alleged prejudice suffered by the applicants cannot be said to raise any issues under Article 2 of the Convention and is more appropriately dealt with in the context of Article 8. While it can be accepted that the applicants' present housing conditions are difficult, there is no indication that they, as such, amount to treatment incompatible with Article 3 (see, mutatis mutandis, López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, p. 54, § 60). - EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98
VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2004 - 53157/99
However, this question only arises where there is at least a "credible assertion of ill-treatment" upon which the authorities must act (see the Valašinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, 24 July 2001, ECHR 2001-VIII, § 122). - EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00
BURDOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2004 - 53157/99
To the extent that the applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that, despite the court judgments in their favour, they have not been resettled, the Court observes that the "right to a court" under this provision includes the right to have a judgment duly executed (see, for example, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 37 and 40-41, 7 May 2002, ECHR 2002-III).
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".