Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BARTIK v. RUSSIA

  Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 34 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (victim) Violation of P4-2 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and Convention proceedings ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BARTIK c. RUSSIE

  Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 34 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée (victime) Violation de P4-2 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédures nationale et de la Convention (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.09.2004 - 55565/00
• EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00
• EGMR, 10.07.2019 - 55565/00

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00

  TIMISHEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00

  55762/00 and 55974/00, 30 March 2004).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00

  The applicable test is nonetheless similar: in order to comply with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 such a restriction must be "in accordance with the law", pursue one or more of the legitimate aims contemplated in paragraph 3 of the same Article and be "necessary in a democratic society" (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 39, Series A no. 281-A, and Napijalo, cited above, § 74).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00

  In particular, a measure by means of which an individual is denied the use of an identity 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 Napijalo, cited above, §§ 69 and 73; Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 62, ECHR 2001-V; and Timishev v. Russia (dec.), nos.

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95

  CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00

  A decision or measure favourable to the applicant is in principle not sufficient to deprive him of his status as a victim in the absence of such acknowledgement and redress (see Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 40, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 32190/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00

  The Court has dealt with the withdrawal of travel documents and passports in applications concerning criminal (or bankruptcy) proceedings against applicants or third parties (see, for example, Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 33933/96

  GUISSET c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00

  In so far as the Government's statement may be understood as a challenge to the applicant's status as a "victim" of the alleged violation, the Court reiterates that an applicant will only cease to have standing as a victim within the meaning of Article 34 if the national authorities have acknowledged the alleged violations either expressly or in substance and then afforded redress (see Guisset v. France, no. 33933/96, §§ 66-67, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 07.08.1998 - 31106/96

  MARANGOS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00

  The Convention organs have previously accepted that restrictions imposed following a failure to comply with military service obligations (see Marangos v. Cyprus, no. 31106/96, Commission decision of 20 May 1997, unreported), or restrictions on the travel of a mentally ill person who had no arrangements for appropriate care in the destination country (see Nordblad v. Sweden, no. 19076/91, Commission decision of 13 October 1993, unreported), were permissible.
• EKMR, 13.10.1993 - 19076/91

  NORDBLAD v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00

  The Convention organs have previously accepted that restrictions imposed following a failure to comply with military service obligations (see Marangos v. Cyprus, no. 31106/96, Commission decision of 20 May 1997, unreported), or restrictions on the travel of a mentally ill person who had no arrangements for appropriate care in the destination country (see Nordblad v. Sweden, no. 19076/91, Commission decision of 13 October 1993, unreported), were permissible.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 28975/05

  [ENG]

  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, 27.03.2018 - 5871/07

  BERKOVICH 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.
• EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13

  MURSALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN and 10 other applications

  62775/16 and 43327/16 cannot deprive them of their victim status under the Convention, and that they are still victims within the meaning of the Convention in respect of their complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, § 34, ECHR 2006-XV, and Berkovich and Others v. Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 51279/09

  VLASOV v. RUSSIA

  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 and must meet the requirements of paragraph 3 of that Article (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, § 36, ECHR 2006-XV, and Napijalo v. Croatia, no. 66485/01, § 68, 13 November 2003).
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4663/05

  SOLTYSYAK v. RUSSIA

  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, 15.05.2018 - 32963/16

  NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, he may still claim to be a "victim" of the alleged violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, §§ 32-34, ECHR 2006-XV).