Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 53487/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,52543) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MERIAKRI v. MOLDOVA
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c MRK
Struck out of the list (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 16.01.2001 - 53487/99
- EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 53487/99
- EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 53487/99
Wird zitiert von ... (84) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 26.03.2002 - 25754/94
HARAN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 53487/99
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the declaration as well as the scope and extent of the various undertakings referred to therein, together with the amount of compensation proposed (which is consistent with the amounts awarded in the above-mentioned cases), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; and also Haran v. Turkey, no. 25754/94, judgment of 26 March 2002). - EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88
CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 53487/99
The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State as regards the confidentiality of a prisoner's correspondence (see, amongst many others, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 67; Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80; McCallum v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 183; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233; Petra v. Romania, no. 27273/95, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, judgment of 4 July 2000 (unpublished); Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, Reports 2000-XII; Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, Reports 2003-V). - EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 53487/99
The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State as regards the confidentiality of a prisoner's correspondence (see, amongst many others, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 67; Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80; McCallum v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 183; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233; Petra v. Romania, no. 27273/95, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, judgment of 4 July 2000 (unpublished); Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, Reports 2000-XII; Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, Reports 2003-V). - EGMR, 24.10.1983 - 5947/72
SILVER ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI (ARTICLE 50)
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 53487/99
The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State as regards the confidentiality of a prisoner's correspondence (see, amongst many others, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 67; Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80; McCallum v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 183; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233; Petra v. Romania, no. 27273/95, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, judgment of 4 July 2000 (unpublished); Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, Reports 2000-XII; Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, Reports 2003-V).
- EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 25149/03
Rechtssache V. H. gegen die NIEDERLANDE
Bei der Entscheidung, ob die vorliegende Rechtssache im Register zu streichen ist, berücksichtigt der Gerichtshof die Kriterien, die sich aus seiner Rechtsprechung ergeben (siehe Tahsin Acar ./. Türkei [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 26307/95, Rndr. 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; und ebenfalls Haran ./. Türkei , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 25754/94, Urteil vom 26. März 2002, Akman ./. Türkei (Streichung), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 37453/97, ECHR 2001-VI, und Meriakri ./. Republik Moldau (Streichung), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 53487/99, 1. März 2005). - EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03
SULWINSKA v. POLAND
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006) and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX). - EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01
ASSOCIATION SOS ATTENTATS ET DE BOERY c. FRANCE
The Court has, for example, ruled that in certain circumstances it may be appropriate to strike an application out of its list of cases under this provision on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the respondent Government even though the applicant wishes the examination of the merits of his case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also, in particular, Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 37453/97, ECHR 2001-VI; Haran v. Turkey, no. 25754/94, 26 March 2002; Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005; and Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
- EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 11602/02
SPÓLKA Z O.O. WAZA v. POLAND
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006) and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX). - EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57884/00
KALANYOS AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
The Court will have to examine carefully the qualified declaration made by the Government in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (as cited above, §§ 75-77); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006) and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX). - EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 29705/05
Recht auf Freiheit der Person und Recht auf Akteneinsicht (Recht auf ein faires …
Zu diesem Zweck prüft der Gerichtshof die Erklärung sorgfältig im Lichte der Kriterien, die sich aus seiner Rechtsprechung ergeben (…siehe Tahsin Acar ./. Türkei [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 26307/95, Rdnr. 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI;… und ebenfalls Haran ./. Türkei , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 25754/94, Rdnr. 23, Urteil vom 26. März 2002, Akman ./. Türkei (Streichung), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 37453/97, Rdnr. 30-31, ECHR 2001-VI, Meriakri ./. Republik Moldau (Streichung), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 53487/99, Rdnr. 30-32, 1. März 2005; MacDonald ./. Vereinigtes Königreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 301/04, 6. Februar 2007 und O. ./. Deutschland (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 31384/02, 11. September 2007). - EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 39559/02
STARK AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
In deciding whether or not it should strike the present case out of its list, the Court will examine carefully the terms of the declaration made by the Government in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular its judgments in cases such as Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC] (no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006); Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX) and Kalanyos and Others v. Romania ((no. 57884/00, § 25, 26 April 2007)). - EGMR, 29.12.2005 - 25149/03
- EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 45293/06
ATMACA v. GERMANY
"... Der Gerichtshof hat beispielsweise befunden, dass es unter gewissen Umständen angemessen sein kann, eine Individualbeschwerde aufgrund einer einseitigen Erklärung der beschwerdegegnerischen Regierung nach dieser Bestimmung in seinem Register zu streichen, auch wenn der Beschwerdeführer eine weitere Prüfung der Begründetheit seiner Beschwerde wünscht (siehe Tahsin Acar ./. Türkei (Vorfrage) [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 26307/95, Rdnrn. 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; siehe auch, insbesondere, Akman ./. Türkei (Streichung), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 37453/97, ECHR 2001-VI; Haran ./. Türkei , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 25754/94, 26. März 2002; Meriakri ./. Moldau (Streichung), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 53487/99, 1. März 2005; und Van Houten ./. die Niederlande (Streichung), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX). - EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 7779/04
K.K. v. FINLAND
In deciding whether or not it should strike the present case out of its list, the Court will examine carefully the terms of the declaration made by the Government in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular its judgments in cases such as Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC] (no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006); Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX) and Kalanyos and Others v. Romania ((no. 57884/00, § 25, 26 April 2007)). - EGMR, 28.08.2007 - 41484/04
KLADIVIK AND KASIAR v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 9074/07
MULLAI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37520/07
NISKASAARI AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 62954/00
TANASE AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 72040/01
MARTYNA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57885/00
GERGELY c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 03.03.2009 - 28692/06
VOORHUIS v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 10391/06
NEVALA v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 06.01.2009 - 20532/05
VIINIKANOJA v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 13.05.2008 - 34909/04
P. G. gegen Deutschland
- EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 62637/11
DZIEDZIC v. POLAND
- EGMR, 07.09.2010 - 47182/09
AUTO-NESTOR OY AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 19293/08
KURBANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 12490/06
ACKERMANN v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 59555/08
LEHTONEN v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 37484/07
MOLANDER v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 23996/06
LIEBKIND v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 32681/06
MANNER v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 29370/05
TIERCE c. SAINT-MARIN
- EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 72169/01
RZESZOWSKA-SOBCZYK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 15071/02
MAJ v. POLAND
- EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28436/04
STULA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 18532/06
SZUTARSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 49683/99
ERTURK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 38717/13
SKVORTSOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 5953/03
LAZAR v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 31.08.2010 - 24405/07
LEHTINEN v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 31103/06
CUBAN v. THE NETHERLANDS (V)
- EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 16428/09
MARSYNAHO v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 37507/02
X. v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 22929/06
HAMMEL v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 1285/05
KONIARIK v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 24704/05
PRISCAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 27644/05
LIBIC v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 29481/06
MARKL v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 27067/05
SZASZ v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 38510/05
SERAFIM v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 42974/05
S.c. PATIROM S.A. v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 42268/04
LORINCZ v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 7644/04
CIUL c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 23682/07
OINAALA v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 38019/07
ZAREMBA c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 21805/06
DVORAKOVA AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 15074/05
HAJDUCH v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 48558/06
BRUNOVA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 9028/05
ROMPA v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 20136/02
WNUK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 28457/03
POHLEN v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 17314/03
CAREVIC v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 06.05.2008 - 13992/03
ZAJC v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 01.04.2008 - 1928/04
SEVCIKOVA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 10728/05
LUKAC v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28113/02
LOPYTA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 24151/05
DUCHON v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 35316/05
TOVIS v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 40769/05
PAVKOVA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 25088/04
SIKA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 42555/04
SIKA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 19560/02
POPIEL v. POLAND
- EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 12958/02
NOWAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 35324/05
GE MONEY BANK GMBH v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 32494/05
ZEMANOVA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 28.08.2007 - 13876/05
BOSNAK v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 14081/03
FELBERT v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 32321/03
DENU v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 32420/07
M.S.-D. AND I.D. v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13224/05
LIUKSILA v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 30159/03
LAZAR c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 23.03.2006 - 75025/01
ALEKSENTSEVA and 28 Others v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 37233/07
JOKINEN v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 10470/07
MOL v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 17.03.2009 - 26104/06
POPA VALENTIN IUSTIN v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 34399/05
HEINSE v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 21379/04
STRECHIE v. MOLDOVA
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 16.01.2001 - 53487/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,41437) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MERIAKRI v. MOLDOVA
Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 16.01.2001 - 53487/99
- EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 53487/99
- EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 53487/99
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2001 - 53487/99
The Court observes that this provision recalls that the right to an effective remedy can only be claimed by someone who has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a right guaranteed under the Convention (Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 53487/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,51276) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MERIAKRI v. MOLDOVA
Art. 6, Art. 8 MRK
Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 16.01.2001 - 53487/99
- EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 53487/99
- EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 53487/99
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 12066/02, 9190/03, 39806/05, 10614/06, 36125/14, 7481/06, 32896/07, 37829/08, 24163/11, 60179/09, 29732/07, 32844/07, 15868/07, 30649/05, 8721/05, 7101/06, 53487/99, 61050/11, 50054/07, 33200/11, 38055/06, 35207/03, 21061/11, 51216/06, 39584/07, 28173/10 |
Zitiervorschläge
EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 12066/02, 9190/03, 39806/05, 10614/06, 36125/14, 7481/06, 32896/07, 37829/08, 24163/11, 60179/09, 29732/07, 32844/07, 15868/07, 30649/05, 8721/05, 7101/06, 53487/99, 61050/11, 50054/07, 33200/11, 38055/06, 35207/03, 21061/11, 51216/06, 39584/07, 28173/10 (https://dejure.org/2018,6457)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15.03.2018 - 12066/02, 9190/03, 39806/05, 10614/06, 36125/14, 7481/06, 32896/07, 37829/08, 24163/11, 60179/09, 29732/07, 32844/07, 15868/07, 30649/05, 8721/05, 7101/06, 53487/99, 61050/11, 50054/07, 33200/11, 38055/06, 35207/03, 21061/11, 51216/06, 39584/07, 28173/10 (https://dejure.org/2018,6457)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15. März 2018 - 12066/02, 9190/03, 39806/05, 10614/06, 36125/14, 7481/06, 32896/07, 37829/08, 24163/11, 60179/09, 29732/07, 32844/07, 15868/07, 30649/05, 8721/05, 7101/06, 53487/99, 61050/11, 50054/07, 33200/11, 38055/06, 35207/03, 21061/11, 51216/06, 39584/07, 28173/10 (https://dejure.org/2018,6457)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,6457) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CIORAP CONTRE LA RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET 26 AUTRES AFFAIRES
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CIORAP AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND 26 OTHER CASES
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 12066/02
- EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02
- EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 12066/02, 9190/03, 39806/05, 10614/06, 36125/14, 7481/06, 32896/07, 37829/08, 24163/11, 60179/09, 29732/07, 32844/07, 15868/07, 30649/05, 8721/05, 7101/06, 53487/99, 61050/11, 50054/07, 33200/11, 38055/06, 35207/03, 21061/11, 51216/06, 39584/07, 28173/10
Wird zitiert von ... (3)
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07
Babar Ahmad u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
The length of the period during which a person is detained in the particular conditions also has to be considered (see, among other authorities, Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 64, 19 June 2007; Alver v. Estonia, no. 64812/01, 8 November 2005; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 79, 13 September 2005). - EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 25842/03
NICUT-TANASESCU c. ROUMANIE
En ce qui concerne les demandes liées aux droits salariaux, le Gouvernement, citant la jurisprudence de la Cour (Kalachnikov c. Russie, no 47095/99, § 139, CEDH 2002-VI, et Becciev c. Moldova, no 9190/03, § 81, 4 octobre 2005) souligne que le requérant n'a pas réussi à démontrer la réalité des pertes alléguées. - EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48072/19
BUL c. TURQUIE
Il en va de même pour ce qui est du risque de fuite invoqué ultérieurement (Becciev c. Moldova, no 9190/03, § 58, 4 octobre 2005).