Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  Exception préliminaire rejetée (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité;(Art. 35-1) Épuisement des voies de recours internes;(Art. 35-4) Rejet de la requête à tout stade de la procédure;Exception préliminaire rejetée (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité;(Art. 35-1) ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-4) Rejection of application at any stage of the proceedings;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-4) Rejection of application at any stage of the proceedings;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 72508/13
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (123)

• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  Article 5 § 1 of the Convention guarantees the fundamental right to liberty and security, which is of primary importance in a "democratic society" (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 65, Series A no. 12; Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 37, Series A no. 33; and Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 169, ECHR 2004-II).

  Besides, according to the case-law of the Court, the key purpose of Article 5 § 1 is to prevent arbitrary or unjustified deprivations of liberty (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 30, ECHR 2006-X; Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000-III; and Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 37, Series A no. 33).

  See, for example, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, cited in paragraph 300 of the judgment, where the Court said that it had no reason to doubt the objectivity and soundness of the medical evidence on the basis of which the Dutch courts authorised the detention of the applicant as a person of unsound mind (ibid., § 42).

• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  KASPAROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  Even after that judgment the Court has on a number of occasions dismissed or declined to examine complaints under Article 18 without giving detailed reasons, as it had done before 2004 (see, among others, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 206, ECHR 2005-IV; Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 129, ECHR 2007-I; Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 129-30, 31 July 2014; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 116-17, 4 December 2014; Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 172-73, ECHR 2016 (extracts); Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, §§ 73-74, 11 October 2016; and Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 51988/07, § 55, 13 December 2016).

  By the same token, the majority's finding that it was not necessary to examine Article 18 was criticised by minority judges in Georgia v. Russia (I), cited above; Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, 11 October 2016; Navalnyy v. Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  In all cases which it examined on the merits and in which a complaint had been made under Article 18, the Court either found no need to deal with the complaint or dismissed it summarily by reference to its rulings under the substantive Articles in conjunction with which Article 18 had been pleaded - often because the parties had either not pursued the point at all or had done so with insufficient specificity (see, among others, Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, §§ 93 and 104, Series A no. 22; Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 64, Series A no. 24; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 75, Series A no. 30; Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 76, Series A no. 52; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink, cited above, § 63; Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 61, Series A no. 111; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 99, Reports 1996-IV; Lukanov, cited above, § 49; United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 62, Reports 1998-I; Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 129, ECHR 2000-I; Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 118, ECHR 2000-VI; Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, § 206, ECHR 2001-IV; Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.

  See The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30.

 
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11

  NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  Even after that judgment the Court has on a number of occasions dismissed or declined to examine complaints under Article 18 without giving detailed reasons, as it had done before 2004 (see, among others, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 206, ECHR 2005-IV; Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 129, ECHR 2007-I; Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 129-30, 31 July 2014; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 116-17, 4 December 2014; Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 172-73, ECHR 2016 (extracts); Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, §§ 73-74, 11 October 2016; and Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 51988/07, § 55, 13 December 2016).

  See, for example, Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 74, 4 December 2014, and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, § 141, ECHR 2016 (extracts).

• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  As early as in Artico v. Italy (13 May 1980, § 30, Series A no. 37) the Court stated that that was the general position not only in inter-State cases but also in cases deriving from individual applications.

  Also, according to the case-law of the Court, a restrictive interpretation of the rights guaranteed in the Convention provisions would not correspond to the aim and purpose of these provisions (see, for example, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 25, Series A no. 11; Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 64, ECHR 2004-I; and Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37).[96] This is because the principle of effectiveness, which is inherent in the Convention and underpins all its provisions dealing with human rights, requires that these provisions should be interpreted and applied properly and in a practical and effective way so as to fulfil the scope and purpose of the Convention as a human rights treaty, without any deviation or reduction from its provisions.

• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 74568/12

  Russland verurteilt: 25.000 Euro wegen Festnahme nach Demo

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  Even after that judgment the Court has on a number of occasions dismissed or declined to examine complaints under Article 18 without giving detailed reasons, as it had done before 2004 (see, among others, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 206, ECHR 2005-IV; Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 129, ECHR 2007-I; Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 129-30, 31 July 2014; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 116-17, 4 December 2014; Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 172-73, ECHR 2016 (extracts); Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, §§ 73-74, 11 October 2016; and Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 51988/07, § 55, 13 December 2016).

  See, for example, Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 74, 4 December 2014, and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, § 141, ECHR 2016 (extracts).

• EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 70276/01

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (hinreichender Verdacht nach Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  Nothing in that material appears to cast doubt on the reasonableness of the suspicion against the applicant, either on the facts or as a matter of criminal law (compare Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 55, ECHR 2004-IV, and contrast Lukanov v. Bulgaria, 20 March 1997, §§ 42-45, Reports 1997-II; Kandzhov v. Bulgaria, no. 68294/01, §§ 57-61, 6 November 2008; Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 15172/13, §§ 90-99, 22 May 2014; and Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, §§ 121-32, 17 March 2016).

  Detention cannot be used as a means of exerting moral pressure on an accused (see Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, §§ 74-77, ECHR 2004-IV, and Giorgi Nikolaishvili v. Georgia, no. 37048/04, §§ 57-58, 13 January 2009).

• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07

  KASPAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  Even after that judgment the Court has on a number of occasions dismissed or declined to examine complaints under Article 18 without giving detailed reasons, as it had done before 2004 (see, among others, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 206, ECHR 2005-IV; Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 129, ECHR 2007-I; Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 129-30, 31 July 2014; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 116-17, 4 December 2014; Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 172-73, ECHR 2016 (extracts); Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, §§ 73-74, 11 October 2016; and Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 51988/07, § 55, 13 December 2016).

  29580/12 and 4 others, 2 February 2017;[45] and Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 51988/07, 13 December 2016.

• EuGH, 13.11.1990 - 331/88

  The Queen / Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries und Food, ex parte FEDESA u.a.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, an act is vitiated by misuse of power if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, to have been undertaken solely or mainly for an end other than that for which the power in question was conferred (see, among many other authorities, judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 13 November 1990 in FEDESA and Others, C-331/88, EU:C:1990:391, paragraph 24; judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 April 2013 in Spain and Italy v Council, C-274/11 and C-295/11, EU:C:2013:240, paragraph 33; and judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 4 December 2013 in Commission v Council, C-111/10, EU:C:2013:785, paragraph 80).

  Rather, the first cited judgment, namely, FEDESA and Others v Council, C-331/88, questioned the validity of EU Directive 88/146/EEC of 7 March 1988 regarding its consistency with the objectives of the common agricultural policy as stipulated in the EEC Treaty.

• EuGH, 16.04.2013 - C-274/11

  Der Gerichtshof weist die von Spanien und Italien gegen den Beschluss des Rates …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, an act is vitiated by misuse of power if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, to have been undertaken solely or mainly for an end other than that for which the power in question was conferred (see, among many other authorities, judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 13 November 1990 in FEDESA and Others, C-331/88, EU:C:1990:391, paragraph 24; judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 April 2013 in Spain and Italy v Council, C-274/11 and C-295/11, EU:C:2013:240, paragraph 33; and judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 4 December 2013 in Commission v Council, C-111/10, EU:C:2013:785, paragraph 80).

  The subject matter of the second cited judgment, namely Spain and Italy v Council in the joined cases C-274/11 and C-295/11, was the Council of the European Union's authorisation of enhanced cooperation in the area of competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market, while in the last-cited judgment, namely Commission v Council Case C-111/10, the European Commission contested Council Decision 2009/983/EU of 16 December 2009 on the granting of State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Lithuania for the purchase of agricultural land.

• EuGH, 04.12.2013 - C-111/10

  Der Gerichtshof weist die Klagen der Kommission gegen die Entscheidungen des …
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 48977/09

  ARUTYUNYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

  PLETMENTSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36941/02

  GUBKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  RASUL JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57

  LAWLESS c. IRLANDE (N° 3)
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 5911/05

  KLEUTIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 38779/04

  FELDMAN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13914/88

  INFORMATIONSVEREIN LENTIA AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

  ENHORN c. SUEDE
• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

  Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 4916/07

  Alexejew ./. Russland
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 41561/07

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN - PIRIN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 06.04.2017 - 2229/15

  KARAJANOV v.
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  BOZANO v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 17621/91

  KEMMACHE v. FRANCE (No. 3)
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 30689/05

  KIRLANGIÇ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  NEMTSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02

  KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

  Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6492/11

  Luzenko ./. Ukraine
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11

  Julija Tymoschenko
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 27.06.2002 - 38190/97

  FEDERATION DES SYNDICATS DE TRAVAILLEURS OFFSHORE et AUTRES c. NORVEGE
• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95

  WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 30194/09

  SHIMOVOLOS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 33809/15

  ALAM v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00

  TIMISHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.03.1983 - 7511/76

  CAMPBELL AND COSANS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 31611/96

  NIKULA c. FINLANDE
• EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 11034/84

  WEBER c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68900/13

  ESHONKULOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.04.2012 - 29520/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

  ISKANDAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 21.03.2000 - 34553/97

  DULAURANS c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 24.02.1983 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 31411/07

  MUSTAFA (ABU HAMZA) v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 1727/04

  OLEKSIY MYKHAYLOVYCH ZAKHARKIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

  JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 40774/02

  SOLOVEY AND ZOZULYA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)
• EGMR, 06.02.1981 - 6289/73

  AIREY c. IRLANDE (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 2570/04

  KUCHERUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

  RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94

  AKTAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88

  OPEN DOOR AND DUBLIN WELL WOMAN v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 57375/08

  Abtreibungsverbot in Polen: Lebensschützer und der "Fall Agata"
• EGMR, 31.03.2011 - 60846/10

  NOWAK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80

  BOUAMAR v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 07.03.2013 - 15598/08

  OSTENDORF v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 8398/78

  Pakelli ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 72118/01

  KHAMIDOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 25196/04

  CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S PARTY v. MOLDOVA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 10226/03

  Yumak und Sadak ./. Türkei
• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

  KHAYLETDINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 25748/15

  HAMESEVIC v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 67360/11

  HUSEYNLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 47092/99

  EKIMDJIEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 60259/11

  GAFGAZ MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 13755/03

  CORNEA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09

  HASSAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11

  A ET B c. NORVÈGE
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

  ARTNER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

  Matznetter ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 28793/02

  CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S PARTY v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05

  RASMUSSEN v. POLAND
• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 7031/05

  INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR COMMERCE AND DEVELOPMENT AD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 34320/04

  HAKOBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 69234/11

  IBRAHIMOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 69949/01

  AZIZ c. CHYPRE
• EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 15172/13

  ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  AZIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 18145/05

  GIGOLASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84

  CIULLA v. ITALY
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 07.08.2018 - C-310/18

  Milev

  Außerdem ist das Vorliegen dieser Gefahren ordnungsgemäß nachzuweisen, und die diesbezügliche Begründung der Behörden darf nicht abstrakt, allgemein oder stereotyp sein (vgl. Urteil des EGMR vom 28. November 2017, Merabishvili/Georgien, CE:ECHR:2017:1128JUD007250813, § 222).

  27 Vgl. Urteil des EGMR vom 28. November 2017, Merabishvili/Georgien (CE:ECHR:2017:1128JUD007250813, § 184).

  29 Vgl. Urteil des EGMR vom 28. November 2017, Merabishvili/Georgien (CE:ECHR:2017:1128JUD007250813, § 222).

• EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 49812/09

  VEGOTEX INTERNATIONAL S.A. c. BELGIQUE

  Il est toutefois de jurisprudence constante que la Convention doit se lire comme un tout et s'interpréter de manière à promouvoir sa cohérence interne et l'harmonie entre ses diverses dispositions (voir, par exemple, Austin et autres c. Royaume-Uni [GC], nos 39692/09 et 2 autres, § 54, CEDH 2012, Catan et autres c. République de Moldova et Russie [GC], nos 43370/04 et 2 autres, § 136, CEDH 2012 (extraits), Margus c. Croatie [GC], no 4455/10, § 128, CEDH 2014 (extraits), et Merabishvili c. Géorgie [GC], no 72508/13, § 293, 28 novembre 2017).
• EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 23158/20

  MAKARASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIX-MONTH TIME-LIMIT 46. The Court reiterates that the six-month rule is an autonomous public-policy rule (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 247, 28 November 2017).