Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-a - Abuse of the right of application);Struck out of the list (Article 37-1 - Striking out applications;Article ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Abuse of the right of application;Struck out of the ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• lto.de (Kurzinformation)

  Russland verurteilt: Recht auf freie Wahl verletzt

• beck-aktuell.de (Kurzinformation)

  Russland hat Recht auf freie Wahl verletzt

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (32)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  The absence of a written agreement to recover fees does not exclude the existence of a contractual obligation (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  They reiterated that a wide margin of appreciation was accorded to States in the electoral sphere (the Government referred to the Court's judgments in cases of Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, §§ 52 and 54 Series A no. 113; Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC], no. 10226/03, § 109, ECHR 2008; Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, §§ 100, 110, 132 and 135, ECHR 2006-IV, ECHR 2008; and others) and argued that this margin had not been overstepped in the present case.
• EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 25101/05

  M. P. u. a. gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  On the strength of the above, the Government pointed to the Court's practice of dismissing applications which were knowingly based on untruths or where they had submitted to the Court documents that had knowingly been forged (they referred to Bagheri and Maliki v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30164/06, 15 May 2007, and Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007).

• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 46956/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  In such circumstances, there is insufficient factual basis to enable the Court to conclude that any undue pressure or any form of coercion was put on the first applicant as a result of the case before the Court (see Alpatu Israilova v. Russia, no. 15438/05, §§ 95-98, 14 March 2013, and Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, § 40, 24 July 2014).
• EGMR, 13.04.2006 - 73225/01

  Gesetzlicher Richter gemäß Art. 6 EMRK (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren; Besetzung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or instances of contact designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, § 48, 13 April 2006; Mechenkov v. Russia, no. 35421/05, § 116, 7 February 2008; and Yefimenko v. Russia, no. 152/04, § 164, 12 February 2013).
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 152/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or instances of contact designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, § 48, 13 April 2006; Mechenkov v. Russia, no. 35421/05, § 116, 7 February 2008; and Yefimenko v. Russia, no. 152/04, § 164, 12 February 2013).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 55066/00

  RUSSIAN CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF ENTREPRENEURS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  They drew an analogy with the Court's findings in the judgment of Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v. Russia (nos. 55066/00 and 55638/00, §§ 75 and 79, 11 January 2007).
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 29400/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  It is true that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention was not conceived as a code on electoral matters designed to regulate all aspects of the electoral process (see Communist Party of Russia and Others v. Russia, no. 29400/05, § 108, 19 June 2012).
• EGMR, 15.05.2007 - 30164/06

  BAGHERI AND MALIKI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  On the strength of the above, the Government pointed to the Court's practice of dismissing applications which were knowingly based on untruths or where they had submitted to the Court documents that had knowingly been forged (they referred to Bagheri and Maliki v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30164/06, 15 May 2007, and Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007).
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 33554/03

  LYKOUREZOS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  Furthermore, the object and purpose of the Convention, which is an instrument for the protection of human rights, requires its provisions to be interpreted and applied in such a way as to make their stipulations not theoretical or illusory, but practical and effective (see, among many other authorities, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, and Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, § 56, ECHR 2006-VIII).
• EKMR, 11.09.1995 - 27311/95

  TIMKE v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 31242/05

  VLADIMIR SOKOLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 15438/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 17864/04

  KRASNOV AND SKURATOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 36503/11

  GAHRAMANLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN and 5 other applications
• EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05

  MECHENKOV v. RUSSIA
• EKMR, 12.07.1976 - 7008/75

  X. v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 28.02.1994 - 18997/91

  I.Z. v. GREECE
• EGMR, 25.09.2014 - 12535/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.05.1999 - 43476/98

  BABENKO contre l'UKRAINE
• EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 42482/02

  ANTONENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 39343/98

  KLEYN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 16899/13

  KOCHEROV AND SERGEYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 21727/08

  POST v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 38951/13

  ABRAMYAN v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 48555/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 65938/09

  KEMEVUAKO v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 18705/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 35864/11

  KAUR v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 53180/99

  GORIZDRA v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 20799/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 51501/99

  CHEREPKOV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen