Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GERGELY c. ROUMANIE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c MRK
  Radiation du rôle (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GERGELY v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c MRK
  Struck out of the list (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.12.2003 - 57885/00
• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57885/00

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57885/00

  Il considère en particulier que, si la Cour a déjà rendu un arrêt sur le fond dans une affaire analogue - Moldovan c. Roumanie (no 2) (nos 41138/98 et 64320/01, CEDH 2005-VII (extraits) -, un seul arrêt de cette nature ne peut suffire, compte tenu de la complexité des questions en cause.

  Il considère par ailleurs que l'impact des mesures prises par le Gouvernement pour donner suite aux deux arrêts Moldovan (no 2, précité, et Moldovan et autres c. Roumanie (règlement amiable), nos 41138/98 et 64320/01, § 39, 5 juillet 2005) n'est pas encore mesurable, l'exécution de ces arrêts venant de commencer sous la surveillance du Comité des ministres et étant donc encore en cours.

• EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 25149/03

  Rechtssache V. H. gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57885/00

  Elle doit examiner soigneusement la déclaration du Gouvernement à la lumière des principes qui se dégagent dans sa jurisprudence, en particulier des arrêts Tahsin Acar (précité, §§ 75-77) ; Meriakri c. Moldova (radiation, no 53487/99, 1er mars 2005) ; Syndicat des transporteurs suédois c. Suède (radiation, no 53507/99, 18 juillet 2006) ; et Van Houten c. Pays-Bas (radiation, no 25149/03, CEDH 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 53487/99

  MERIAKRI v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57885/00

  Elle doit examiner soigneusement la déclaration du Gouvernement à la lumière des principes qui se dégagent dans sa jurisprudence, en particulier des arrêts Tahsin Acar (précité, §§ 75-77) ; Meriakri c. Moldova (radiation, no 53487/99, 1er mars 2005) ; Syndicat des transporteurs suédois c. Suède (radiation, no 53507/99, 18 juillet 2006) ; et Van Houten c. Pays-Bas (radiation, no 25149/03, CEDH 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 53507/99

  SWEDISH TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57885/00

  Elle doit examiner soigneusement la déclaration du Gouvernement à la lumière des principes qui se dégagent dans sa jurisprudence, en particulier des arrêts Tahsin Acar (précité, §§ 75-77) ; Meriakri c. Moldova (radiation, no 53487/99, 1er mars 2005) ; Syndicat des transporteurs suédois c. Suède (radiation, no 53507/99, 18 juillet 2006) ; et Van Houten c. Pays-Bas (radiation, no 25149/03, CEDH 2005-IX).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 7644/04

  CIUL c. ROUMANIE

  Ce seront toutefois les circonstances particulières de la cause qui permettront de déterminer si la déclaration unilatérale offre une base suffisante pour que la Cour conclue que le respect des droits de l'homme garantis par la Convention n'exige pas qu'elle poursuive l'examen de l'affaire (Tahsin Acar c. Turquie (exception préliminaire) [GC], no 26307/95, §§ 75­77, CEDH 2003-VI ; Meriakri c. Moldova (radiation), no 53487/99, 1er mars 2005 ; Kalanyos et autres c. Roumanie, no 57884/00, § 25, 26 avril 2007 ; Gergely c. Roumanie, no 57885/00, § 22, CEDH 2007-22 (extraits) ; et Lück c. Allemagne, no 58364/00, §§ 30-31, 15 mai 2008).
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 30159/03

  LAZAR c. ROUMANIE

  Ce seront toutefois les circonstances particulières de la cause qui permettront de déterminer si la déclaration unilatérale offre une base suffisante pour que la Cour conclue que le respect des droits de l'homme garantis par la Convention n'exige pas qu'elle poursuive l'examen de l'affaire (Tahsin Acar c. Turquie (exception préliminaire) [GC], no 26307/95, §§ 75-77, CEDH 2003-VI ; Meriakri c. Moldova (radiation), no 53487/99, 1er mars 2005 ; Kalanyos et autres c. Roumanie, no 57884/00, § 25, 26 avril 2007 ; Gergely c. Roumanie, no 57885/00, § 22, CEDH 2007-22 (extraits) ; et Lück c. Allemagne, no 58364/00, §§ 30-31, 15 mai 2008).
• EGMR, 17.03.2009 - 26104/06

  POPA VALENTIN IUSTIN v. ROMANIA

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular Tahsin Acar v. Turkey ([GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland ((dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007); Gergely v. Romania (no. 57885/00, § 22, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)); and Lazàr v. Romania ((dec.), no. 30159/03, 25 November 2008).

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GERGELY v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Admissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.12.2003 - 57885/00
• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57885/00

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00

  She considered that the extreme poverty and the poor living conditions, and the fact that she had received no compensation for the loss of her personal belongings or the emotional distress caused by the destruction of her home reached the threshold of both Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C, p. 59, § 30; Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-II; and Selcuk v. Turkey, judgment of 24 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 909, § 74).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00

  She considered that the extreme poverty and the poor living conditions, and the fact that she had received no compensation for the loss of her personal belongings or the emotional distress caused by the destruction of her home reached the threshold of both Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C, p. 59, § 30; Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-II; and Selcuk v. Turkey, judgment of 24 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 909, § 74).
• EGMR, 19.06.2003 - 46165/99

  NEKVEDAVICIUS v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00

  The Government reiterated that the effectiveness of the remedy for the purpose of Article 13 did not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome (see Nekvedavcius v. Germany (dec.), no. 46165/99, 19 June 2003).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00

  The Court reiterates that the object of the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies is to allow the national authorities (primarily the judicial authorities) to address the allegations made of violation of a Convention right and, where appropriate, to afford redress before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, 28 April 2004, Kudla v. Poland [GC] no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00

  They added that there was no obligation under the Convention to provide a home for persons who were in a difficult situation, or to carry out an investigation into the alleged violation of the applicant's right to respect for her home that had occurred before the Convention was ratified (see Buckley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1271; Chapman v. the United Kingdom, [GC], no. 27238/95, ECHR 2001-I; and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, 4 December 2003).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00

  She relied in this respect on the cases of Moldovan and others and Rostas and others v. Romania ((dec.), no. 41138/98 and 64320/01 joined, 3 June 2003), and Guzzardi v. Italy, (judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, pp. 22-23, §§ 60-63).
• EGMR, 18.01.2001 - 27238/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00

  They added that there was no obligation under the Convention to provide a home for persons who were in a difficult situation, or to carry out an investigation into the alleged violation of the applicant's right to respect for her home that had occurred before the Convention was ratified (see Buckley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1271; Chapman v. the United Kingdom, [GC], no. 27238/95, ECHR 2001-I; and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, 4 December 2003).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00

  The applicant claimed that the authorities' failure to conduct a thorough and effective investigation in the instant case resulted, in part, from the fact that the public prosecutors - the officials to whom Romanian law assigned exclusive and unreviewable authority for investigating allegations of crime - lacked sufficient independence and impartiality (she referred to Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61).
• EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 26102/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00

  The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness; it falls to the respondent State to establish that these various conditions are satisfied (see, inter alia, Vernillo v. France, judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, pp. 11-12, § 27, and Dalia v. France, no. 26102/95, § 38, ECHR 1998-I).
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00

  She relied in this respect on the cases of Moldovan and others and Rostas and others v. Romania ((dec.), no. 41138/98 and 64320/01 joined, 3 June 2003), and Guzzardi v. Italy, (judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, pp. 22-23, §§ 60-63).
• EKMR, 16.12.1981 - 8395/78

  X. v. DENMARK

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GERGELY v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.12.2003 - 57885/00
• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57885/00

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (1)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2003 - 57885/00

  The applicant submits that the Court is competent ratione temporis to examine her complaints and refers to the jurisprudence of the Court and the Commission, which found themselves competent ratione temporis, if the events taking place before the date of entry into force of the Convention, either constituted a violation continuing after that date, or had effects which themselves constituted a violation after that date (judgments Yağci and Sargın v. Turkey and Mansur v. Turkey of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A; Loukanov v. Bulgaria decision of 20 March 1997; the Philis v. Greece (no. 2) judgment of 27 June 1997, Reports of Judgements and Decisions 1997-IV).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen