Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZILIBERBERG v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.05.2004 - 61821/00
• EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 61821/00
• EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 61821/00

Wird zitiert von ... (27)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 61821/00

  The general character of the legal rule in question is further confirmed by Article 1 and Article 12 of the CAO which refer to the fact that administrative responsibility comes into operation at the age of sixteen and all citizens must show respect for legal rules and the rights of other citizens and legal persons (see Öztürk v. Germany, judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, § 53).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 61821/00

  The Court further notes that in Kremzow v. Austria (judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B) and in Kamasinski v. Austria (judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168), it set out the principle according to which the presence in person of the accused at a hearing of an appeal where only points of law were considered was not crucial.
• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86

  BENDENOUN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 61821/00

  The fine was not intended as pecuniary compensation for damage but was punitive and deterrent in nature (see, mutatis mutandis, the Bendenoun v France judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 284, § 47).

• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 61821/00

  (see, for example, Stanford v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 282-A, § 26; BarberaÌ€, MessegueÌ� and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, § 78).
• EGMR, 23.07.2002 - 34619/97

  JANOSEVIC c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 61821/00

  This does not exclude that a cumulative approach may be adopted where the separate analysis of each criterion does not make it possible to reach a clear conclusion as to the existence of a "criminal charge" (see, Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, § 67, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 61821/00

  The Court further notes that in Kremzow v. Austria (judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B) and in Kamasinski v. Austria (judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168), it set out the principle according to which the presence in person of the accused at a hearing of an appeal where only points of law were considered was not crucial.
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 61821/00

  The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90

  STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 61821/00

  (see, for example, Stanford v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 282-A, § 26; BarberaÌ€, MessegueÌ� and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, § 78).
• EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 60115/00

  Meinungsfreiheit von Rechtsanwälten bei der öffentlichen Kritik von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 61821/00

  It may have regard in that connection to such matters as the number of hours worked and the hourly rate sought (see, Amihalachioaie v. Moldova, no. 60115/00, § 47, ECHR 2004-...).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 74568/12

  Russland verurteilt: 25.000 Euro wegen Festnahme nach Demo

  In any event, an individual does not cease to enjoy the right to peaceful assembly as a result of sporadic violence or other punishable acts committed by others in the course of the demonstration, if the individual in question remains peaceful in his or her own intentions or behaviour (see Ezelin, cited above, § 53; Ziliberberg v. Moldova (dec.), no. 61821/00, 4 May 2004; and Primov and Others v. Russia, no. 17391/06, § 155, 12 June 2014).
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 57818/09

  LASHMANKIN v. RUSSIA and 14 other applications

  The impossibility of imposing such sanctions would render illusory the power of the State to require notification (see Ziliberberg v. Moldova (dec.), no. 61821/00, 4 May 2004).
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 21613/07

  [ENG]

  They argued that the offence under Article 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences was not punishable by administrative detention, a fact which distinguished the present case from Ziliberberg v. Moldova (no. 61821/00, § 34, 1 February 2005).

• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 6991/08

  [ENG]

  The Court's observations in Ziliberberg v. Moldova (dec.), no. 61821/00, 4 May 2004 were apposite: since States had the right to require authorisation, they had to be able to apply sanctions to those who participated in demonstrations that did not comply with that requirement.
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 60259/11

  GAFGAZ MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Referring to its findings in Asadbeyli and Others v. Azerbaijan, the Court considers that the proceedings in the present case should be classified as determining a criminal charge against the applicant, even though they are characterised as "administrative" under Azerbaijani legislation (see Asadbeyli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 3653/05, 14729/05, 20908/05, 26242/05, 36083/05 and 16519/06, §§ 152-55, 11 December 2012; see also Ziliberberg v. Moldova, no. 61821/00, §§ 30-35, 1 February 2005, and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 95-98, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 31475/10

  ANNENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that an individual does not cease to enjoy the right to freedom of peaceful assembly as a result of sporadic violence or other punishable acts committed by others in the course of a demonstration if the individual in question remains peaceful in his or her own intentions or behaviour (see Ziliberberg v. Moldova (dec.), no. 61821/00, 4 May 2004).
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 67360/11

  HUSEYNLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  áƒ�ქედáƒ�ნ გáƒ�მáƒ�მდინáƒ�რე, პრეცედენტული áƒ.áƒ�მáƒ�რთლიáƒ. დáƒ�áƒ.კვნებáƒ-ე დáƒ�ყრდნáƒ�ბით, áƒ.áƒ�áƒ.áƒ�მáƒ�რთლáƒ� მიიჩნევáƒ., რáƒ�მ áƒ.áƒ�მáƒ�რთáƒ�ლáƒáƒ�რმáƒ�ებáƒ� მáƒ�ცემულ áƒ.áƒ�ქმეებáƒ-ე გáƒ�ნმცხáƒ�დებლებიáƒ. áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ�áƒ�ღმდეგ áƒ.იáƒ.ხლიáƒ. áƒ.áƒ�მáƒ�რთლიáƒ. áƒ.áƒ�ქმედ უნდáƒ� კლáƒ�áƒ.იფიცირდეáƒ., მიუხედáƒ�ვáƒ�დ იმიáƒ.áƒ�, რáƒ�მ áƒ�áƒ-ერბáƒ�იჯáƒ�ნიáƒ. კáƒ�ნáƒ�ნმდებლáƒ�ბიáƒ. თáƒ�ნáƒ�ხმáƒ�დ, áƒ�ღნიშნული გáƒ�ნიáƒ.áƒ�áƒ-ღვრებáƒ� იáƒ.ე, რáƒ�გáƒ�რც "áƒ�დმინიáƒ.ტრáƒ�ციული" (იხ. áƒ-ილიბერბერგი მáƒ�ლდáƒ�ვáƒ�áƒ. áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ�áƒ�ღმდეგ, N 61821/00, §§ 30-35, 1 თებერვáƒ�ლი, 2005 áƒ.; მენეშევáƒ� რუáƒ.ეთიáƒ. áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ�áƒ�ღმდეგ, N 59261/00, §§ 95-98, ECHR, 2006-III; გáƒ�ლáƒ.ტიáƒ�ნი áƒ.áƒ�მხეთიáƒ. áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ�áƒ�ღმდეგ, N 26986/03, §§ 56-60, 15 ნáƒ�ემბერი, 2007 áƒ.
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 24251/07

  CARCEA v. MOLDOVA

  "... The Government agree that the applicant's complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the circumstances of the case do not essentially [differ] from the Court's findings in the case of Ziliberberg v. Moldova, no. 61821/00, 1 February 2005.

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Moldova, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right of access to a court, in particular the requirement of summoning the parties to the proceedings when the law provides for their right to be present at the hearing (see, for instance, Ziliberberg v. Moldova, no. 61821/00, §§ 37-42, 1 February 2005; Gutu v. Moldova, no. 20289/02, §§ 51-54, 7 June 2007; Russu v. Moldova, no. 7413/05, §§ 19-28, 13 November 2008; and Masaev v. Moldova, no. 6303/05, §§ 16-18, 12 May 2009).

• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06

  [ENG]

  Since States have the right to require authorisation, they must be able to apply sanctions to those who participate in demonstrations that do not comply with the requirement (see Ziliberberg v. Moldova (dec.), no. 61821/00, 4 May 2004, and Rai and Evans, cited above).
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 69234/11

  IBRAHIMOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Therefore, referring to its findings in its well-established case-law, the Court considers that the proceedings in the present cases should be classified as determining a criminal charge against the applicants, even though they are characterised as "administrative" under Azerbaijani legislation (see Ziliberberg v. Moldova, no. 61821/00, §§ 30-35, 1 February 2005; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 95-98, ECHR 2006-III; and Galstyan, §§ 56-60, cited above; see also Asadbeyli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos.
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 2638/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.06.2016 - 5231/13

  HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 26258/07

  RAI ET EVANS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 28.02.2013 - 22163/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 23470/05

  NICOLETA GHEORGHE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 27968/03

  KUZMICKAJA v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  ABBASOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 2515/11

  JAFARZADE v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 25555/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 28447/05

  URSU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 36755/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 19042/06

  CHISTOL v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 12218/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 6303/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.09.2011 - 3127/09

  FLISAR v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR - 15058/08 (anhängig)

  KOZLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 25230/02

  ROSCA, SECAREANU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA