Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHEVANOVA c. LETTONIE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 41 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée (victime) Violation de l'art. 8 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédures nationale et de la Convention (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHEVANOVA v. LATVIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (victim) Violation of Art. 8 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention and domestic proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.02.2001 - 58822/00
• EGMR, 28.02.2002 - 58822/00
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 58822/00
• EGMR, 07.12.2007 - 58822/00

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (22)

• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 58822/00

  Furthermore, in relation to Article 34, the Court has always held that, as a general rule, a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the alleged breach of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 142, ECHR 2000-IV; and Guisset v. France, no. 33933/96, § 66, ECHR 2000-IX).

  For example: detention of a person pending his deportation (Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, § 36); freedom of expression (Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI); right to a fair hearing before the Conseil d"Etat (Chevrol v. France, no. 49636/99, § 36, ECHR 2003-III); right to peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions (Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-VII); electoral rights (Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 69, ECHR 2006-...), and so forth.

• EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 49636/99

  CHEVROL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 58822/00

  In sum, while it is true that some redress has been afforded, it is no more than partial (see the Aristimuño Mendizabal decision, cited above, and, mutatis mutandis, Chevrol v. France, no. 49636/99, § 42, ECHR 2003-III).

  For example: detention of a person pending his deportation (Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, § 36); freedom of expression (Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI); right to a fair hearing before the Conseil d"Etat (Chevrol v. France, no. 49636/99, § 36, ECHR 2003-III); right to peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions (Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-VII); electoral rights (Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 69, ECHR 2006-...), and so forth.

• EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 51431/99

  ARISTIMUNO MENDIZABAL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 58822/00

  However, the present application concerns the removal of a foreign national and her illegal residence within the national territory; in cases of this type, where the applicant's stay was regularised during the course of the Court's examination of the application, the Court has generally considered whether it should continue its examination under Article 34 of the Convention by reference precisely to the notion of "victim" (see, for example, the Pancenko and Mikheyeva decisions, cited above; see also Maaouia v. France (dec.), no. 39652/98, ECHR 1999-II; Aristimuño Mendizabal v. France, (dec.), no. 51431/99, 21 June 2005; and Yildiz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40932/02, 13 October 2005).

  In dismissing the Government's preliminary objection, the majority referred to the decision in Aristimuño Mendizabal v. France (no. 51431/99, 21 June 2005; see also the judgment of 17 January 2006).

 
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 26103/95

  VAN GEYSEGHEM c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 58822/00

  The Court considers that the applicant has not demonstrated with sufficient certainty the existence of a direct causal link between the alleged pecuniary damage and the violation (see Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 40, ECHR 1999-I, and Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 73, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 58822/00

  There are certainly many other cases of this type - relating, for instance, to allegations of torture or ill-treatment - in which the finding of a serious violation of the Convention is more or less a foregone conclusion (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  ROTARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 58822/00

  Equally, the Court may award the injured party payment not only of the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before it, but also those incurred before the domestic courts to prevent or rectify a violation found by the Court (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 86, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 58822/00

  The Court went on to conclude that ""respect" for a family life so understood implies an obligation for the State to act in a manner calculated to allow these ties to develop normally" (see Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 21, § 45; see also Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 221, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 45582/99

  L. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 58822/00

  By way of example I would cite the L. judgment of 1 June 2004, in which the Court accepted that family life could also exist between a child and a parent who had never lived together, if other factors demonstrated that the relationship had sufficient constancy to create de facto family ties (see L. v. the Netherlands, no. 45582/99, § 36, ECHR 2004-IV)[1].
• EGMR, 26.03.1992 - 12083/86

  BELDJOUDI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 58822/00

  The Court reiterates that most of the similar applications it has examined to date under Article 8 of the Convention concerned cases in which the alien deported or about to be deported had committed crimes or serious offences (see, among other authorities, the Moustaquim, El Boujaïdi, Dalia and Baghli judgments, cited above; see also Beldjoudi v. France, judgment of 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234-A; Nasri v. France, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 320-B; Boughanemi v. France, judgment of 24 April 1996, Reports 1996-II; Bouchelkia v. France, judgment of 29 January 1997, Reports 1997-I; Mehemi v. France, judgment of 26 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI; Boujlifa v. France, judgment of 21 October 1997, Reports 1997-VI; and Ezzouhdi v. France, no. 47160/99, 13 February 2001).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 58822/00

  The Court went on to conclude that ""respect" for a family life so understood implies an obligation for the State to act in a manner calculated to allow these ties to develop normally" (see Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 21, § 45; see also Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 221, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 19465/92

  NASRI v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 30.11.1999 - 34374/97

  BAGHLI v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96

  IGNACCOLO-ZENIDE v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 33933/96

  GUISSET c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 22.06.1989 - 11373/85

  ERIKSSON c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12313/86

  MOUSTAQUIM c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß
• EGMR, 02.08.2001 - 54273/00

  BOULTIF v. SWITZERLAND