Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PROKOPOVICH v. RUSSIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (estoppel) Violation of Art. 8 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PROKOPOVITCH c. RUSSIE [Extraits]

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée (forclusion) Violation de l'art. 8 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 58255/00
• EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 58255/00
• EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 58255/00

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 58255/00

  Whether or not a particular habitation constitutes a "home" which attracts the protection of Article 8 § 1 will depend on the factual circumstances, namely, the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see the following authorities: Buckley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, §§ 52-54, and Commission's report of 11 January 1995, § 63; Gillow v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, § 46; Wiggins v. the United Kingdom, no. 7456/76, Commission decision of 8 February 1978, Decisions and Reports (DR) 13, p. 40).
• VK Niedersachsen, 20.09.2002 - 18/02

  Unverzüglichkeit der Rüge: Rügefrist beträgt bei einem fachkundigen Unternehmen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 58255/00

  18/02/2005.
• EKMR, 08.02.1978 - 7456/76

  WIGGINS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 58255/00

  Whether or not a particular habitation constitutes a "home" which attracts the protection of Article 8 § 1 will depend on the factual circumstances, namely, the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see the following authorities: Buckley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, §§ 52-54, and Commission's report of 11 January 1995, § 63; Gillow v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, § 46; Wiggins v. the United Kingdom, no. 7456/76, Commission decision of 8 February 1978, Decisions and Reports (DR) 13, p. 40).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 24014/05

  MUSTAFA TUNÇ AND FECIRE TUNÇ v. TURKEY

  « En l'absence de circonstances exceptionnelles de nature à absoudre le Gouvernement de n'avoir pas soulevé cette exception en temps utile, la Cour estime que celui-ci est forclos à exciper à ce stade d'un défaut de qualité de victime du premier requérant (Sejdovic c. Italie [GC], no 56581/00, § 41, CEDH 2006-II, Prokopovitch c. Russie, no 58255/00, § 29, CEDH 2004-XI, et Andrejeva c. Lettonie [GC], no55707/00, § 49, CEDH 2009).
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30499/03

  [ENG]

  As regards the Government's allegation that the complaints lodged by the Gavrylyuk-Vakiv family are incompatible with the Convention ratione personae, the Court notes, firstly, that Article 8 of the Convention applies regardless of whether an applicant's home has been built or occupied lawfully (see, among other authorities, Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, § 36, ECHR 2004-XI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 2512/04

  Nolan und K. ./. Russland

  Prokopovich v. Russia , no. 58255/00, § 36, ECHR 2004-XI, and Gillow v. the United Kingdom , 24 November 1986, § 46, Series A no. 109).

• EGMR, 01.04.2008 - 73957/01

  VARGA c. ROUMANIE

  A ce titre, la Cour relève que, si le troisième requérant était présent dans la maison de ses grands-parents au moment de la perquisition, il ressort du dossier qu'il n'avait pas le domicile dans cette maison, mais à une autre adresse de la même ville, et que la partie requérante n'a pas fourni d'éléments pour l'amener à conclure qu'il existait des liens suffisants et continus pour que cette maison constitue son « domicile ", au sens de l'article 8 de la Convention (voir les paragraphes 11 et 20 in fine, ci-dessus ; a contrario, parmi d'autres, Prokopovitch c. Russie, no 58255/00, §§ 36-39, CEDH 2004-XI (extraits)).
• EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 36822/02

  BRACCI c. ITALIE

  Par ailleurs, la Cour ne saurait déceler aucune circonstance exceptionnelle susceptible d'exonérer le Gouvernement de l'obligation de soulever ses exceptions préliminaires avant l'adoption de la décision de la Cour sur la recevabilité de la requête du 2 décembre 2004 (Prokopovich c. Russie, no 58255/00, § 29, 18 novembre 2004).
• EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 17382/04

  BOYKO v. UKRAINE

  The concept of "home" within the meaning of Article 8 is not limited to accommodation lawfully occupied or accommodation lawfully established (see Gillow v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, § 46; and Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, §§ 36-39, ECHR 2004-XI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 60223/09

  GUSTOVARAC v. CROATIA

  Whether or not a particular premises constitutes a "home" which attracts the protection of Article 8 § 1 will depend on the factual circumstances, namely, the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, § 36, ECHR 2004-XI (extracts); and Globa v. Ukraine, no. 15729/07, § 37, 5 July 2012).
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 27427/02

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates that, whether or not a particular property constitutes a "home", will depend on the factual circumstances of each particular case, namely, the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, § 36, ECHR 2004-XI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 15729/07

  [ENG]

  Whether or not a particular premises constitutes a "home" which attracts the protection of Article 8 § 1 will depend on the factual circumstances, namely the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, §§ 52-54, and Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, § 36, ECHR 2004-XI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 18.09.2008 - 40265/03

  RAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that the concept of "home" within the meaning of Article 8 is not limited to those which are lawfully occupied or which have been lawfully established (see Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, §§ 36-39, ECHR 2004-XI (extracts), and Gillow v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, § 46).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 8459/03

  DZHARAGETI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 33690/06

  [ENG]