Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87, 89/1991/341/414 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
COSTELLO-ROBERTS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
Non-violation de l'Art. 3 Non-violation de l'Art. 8 Non-violation de l'Art. 13 (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
COSTELLO-ROBERTS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
No violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 8 No violation of Art. 13 (englisch) - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Besprechungen u.ä.
- HRR Strafrecht (Aufsatz mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)
Zur «Einzelfallprüfung» und «geltungszeitlichen Interpretation» im Rahmen des Art. 3 EMRK (Dr. Daniela Demko; HRRS 3/2005, S. 94 ff.)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 13.12.1990 - 13134/87
- EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87, 89/1991/341/414
- EGMR, 19.04.1993 - 13134/87
Papierfundstellen
- Serie A Nr. 247-C
Wird zitiert von ... (142) Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87
In its Tyrer v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 April 1978 (Series A no. 26), the Court has already held that corporal punishment may constitute an assault on a person's dignity and physical integrity as protected under Article 3 (art. 3).Factors such as the nature and context of the punishment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration, its physical and mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim must all be taken into account (see the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, para. 162, the above-mentioned Tyrer judgment, Series A no. 26, pp. 14-15, paras. 29-30, and the above-mentioned Soering judgment, Series A no. 161, p. 39, para. 100).
A punishment which does not occasion such effects may fall within the ambit of Article 3 (art. 3) (see the above-mentioned Tyrer judgment, Series A no. 26, pp. 16-17, para. 33), provided that in the particular circumstances of the case it may be said to have reached the minimum threshold of severity required.
- EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71
KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87
It recalls that the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols must be read as a whole (see the Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 23, pp. 26 and 27, paras. 52 and 54, and the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 40, para. 103).The fundamental right of everyone to education is a right guaranteed equally to pupils in State and independent schools, no distinction being made between the two (see, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen judgment, Series A no. 23, p. 24, para. 50).
- EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88
Jens Söring
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87
It recalls that the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols must be read as a whole (see the Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 23, pp. 26 and 27, paras. 52 and 54, and the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 40, para. 103).Factors such as the nature and context of the punishment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration, its physical and mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim must all be taken into account (see the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, para. 162, the above-mentioned Tyrer judgment, Series A no. 26, pp. 14-15, paras. 29-30, and the above-mentioned Soering judgment, Series A no. 161, p. 39, para. 100).
- EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88
NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87
The Court agrees with the Government that the notion of "private life" is a broad one, which, as it held in its recent judgment in the case of Niemietz v. Germany (16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, p. 11, para. 29), is not susceptible to exhaustive definition. - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87
Notwithstanding its findings that no right guaranteed by either Article 3 (art. 3) or Article 8 (art. 8) has been violated, the Court must, in accordance with its case-law, consider the applicant's claim under Article 13 (art. 13), provided that his grievances under Articles 3 and 8 (art. 3, art. 8) can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, among other authorities, the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, para. 52). - EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87
PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87
Secondly, the effectiveness of a remedy for the purposes of Article 13 (art. 13) does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome (see, as the most recent authority, the Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 27, para. 66); in any event it is not for the Court to speculate as to what decision the English courts would have reached, given particularly the latitude which those courts would have to apply relevant contemporary standards (see paragraph 15 in fine above). - EGMR, 13.08.1981 - 7601/76
YOUNG, JAMES ET WEBSTER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87
The Court has consistently held that the responsibility of a State is engaged if a violation of one of the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention is the result of non-observance by that State of its obligation under Article 1 (art. 1) to secure those rights and freedoms in its domestic law to everyone within its jurisdiction (see, mutatis mutandis, the Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom judgment of 13 August 1981, Series A no. 44, p. 20, para. 49). - EGMR, 25.02.1982 - 7511/76
CAMPBELL ET COSANS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87
Functions relating to the internal administration of a school, such as discipline, cannot be said to be merely ancillary to the educational process (see, mutatis mutandis, the Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 February 1982, Series A no. 48, p. 14, para. 33). - EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80
VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87
Thirdly, the Court agrees with the applicant that the State cannot absolve itself from responsibility by delegating its obligations to private bodies or individuals (see, mutatis mutandis, the Van der Mussele v. Belgium judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, pp. 14-15, paras. 28-30).
- EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00
Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …
Nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs greift die Verantwortlichkeit eines Staates ein, wenn die Verletzung eines der Rechte und Grundfreiheiten, wie sie in der Konvention definiert sind, sich daraus ergibt, dass der betreffende Staat seiner Verpflichtung nach Artikel 1 nicht nachgekommen ist, allen seiner Hoheitsgewalt unterstehenden Personen diese Rechte und Grundfreiheiten in seinem innerstaatlichen Recht zuzusichern (siehe u. a. Rechtssache Costello-Roberts ./. Vereinigtes Königreich , Urteil vom 25. März 1993, Serie A, Bd. 247-C, S. 57, Nr. 26, sowie Rechtssache Wos ./. Polen (Entsch.) , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 22860/02, 1. März 2005, Nr. 60). - EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02
Opuz ./. Türkei
L'appréciation de ce minimum est relative ; elle dépend de l'ensemble des données de la cause, et notamment de la nature et du contexte du traitement, de sa durée, de ses effets physiques ou mentaux ainsi que, parfois, du sexe, de l'âge et de l'état de santé de la victime (voir Costello-Roberts c. Royaume-Uni, 25 mars 1993, § 30, série A no 247-C). - EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 27725/10
MOHAMMED HUSSEIN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS AND ITALY
These standards imply that the ill-treatment the applicant alleges he or she will face if returned must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this is relative, depending on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration, nature and context of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 30, Series A no. 247-C; Hilal v. the United Kingdom, no. 45276/99, § 60, ECHR 2001-II; and El Masri, cited above, § 196).
- EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 56030/07
Kirchenkritische Mitarbeiter - Keine Beschäftigung für religionskritischen …
It is obvious that the responsibility of a State is engaged if a violation of one of the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention is the result of non-observance by that State of its obligation under Article 1 to secure those rights and freedoms in its domestic law to everyone within its jurisdiction (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 26, Series A no. 247-C; Wos v. Poland (dec.), no. 22860/02, § 60, ECHR 2005-IV; and Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, § 101, ECHR 2005-V). - EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 36022/97
HATTON ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
La Cour réaffirme d'abord que l'article 13 ne va pas jusqu'à exiger un recours par lequel on puisse dénoncer, devant une autorité nationale, les lois d'un Etat contractant comme contraires à la Convention (Costello-Roberts c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 25 mars 1993, série A no 247-C, p. 62, § 40). - EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 40825/98
RELIGIONSGEMEINSCHAFT DER ZEUGEN JEHOVAS AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C, p. 62, § 40). - EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
DE TOMMASO v. ITALY
It does not compel States to allow individuals to challenge domestic laws before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 40, Series A no. 247-C), but seeks only to ensure that anyone who makes an arguable complaint of a violation of a Convention right will have an effective remedy in the domestic legal order (ibid., § 39). - EGMR, 12.09.2012 - 10593/08
Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und Recht auf Beschwerde; Verhältnis zwischen …
The Court has found that health, together with physical and moral integrity, falls within the realm of private life (see Glor, cited above, § 54, and X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 22, Series A no. 91; see also Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C). - EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 44599/98
BENSAID c. ROYAUME-UNI
Not every act or measure which adversely affects moral or physical integrity will interfere with the right to respect to private life guaranteed by Article 8. However, the Court's case-law does not exclude that treatment which does not reach the severity of Article 3 treatment may nonetheless breach Article 8 in its private-life aspect where there are sufficiently adverse effects on physical and moral integrity (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C, pp. 60-61, § 36). - EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 4158/05
GILLAN ET QUINTON c. ROYAUME-UNI
Not every act that might impinge upon a person's autonomy or physical integrity would entail such an interference (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, § 36, judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C). - EGMR, 12.12.2002 - 59021/00
Massaker von Distomo
- EGMR, 30.04.2009 - 13444/04
GLOR v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.07.2021 - C-401/19
Generalanwalt Saugmandsgaard Øe: Art. 17 der Richtlinie 2019/790 über das …
- EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 3564/11
EREMIA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 45216/07
J. A.-I. u. a. ./. Deutschland
- EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 41720/13
NICOLAE VIRGILIU TANASE c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 61382/09
B. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 52442/09
DURDEVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 51500/08
ÇAM c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 73235/12
IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 54522/00
KOTOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.09.1998 - 25599/94
A. c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 16.12.1997 - 20972/92
RANINEN v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 10161/13
M. AND M. v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 74839/10
MUDRIC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 19.12.1994 - 15153/89
VEREINIGUNG DEMOKRATISCHER SOLDATEN ÖSTERREICHS AND GUBI v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 38450/05
SABANCHIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 38030/12
KHAN v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 41526/10
DORDEVIC c. CROATIE
- EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
MELNIK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 64602/12
R.B. v. HUNGARY
- EKMR, 09.09.1996 - 25599/94
A. AND B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 61302/00
BUZESCU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 35228/03
BOGUMIL c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 25196/94
IWÁNCZUK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96
EGMEZ c. CHYPRE
- EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 12060/12
M.C. AND A.C. v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 65755/01
ILIYA STEFANOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 32325/13
MAFALANI v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 18071/05
MASKHADOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 49304/09
BIRZIETIS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 21.11.2013 - 23380/09
BOUYID c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 12350/04
WAINWRIGHT c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 60861/00
MANOILESCU AND DOBRESCU v. ROMANIA AND RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.10.2002 - 38719/97
D.P. & J.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 33234/07
VALIULIENE v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 55164/08
A. v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 22367/04
SAMADI v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13
KIRÁLY AND DÖMÖTÖR v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06
DOLENEC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 15352/11
NIKOLIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 26608/11
T.M. AND C.M. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 26937/04
TRESKA c. ALBANIE ET ITALIE
- EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 7988/09
ZALOV AND KHAKULOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 22089/07
ARKHESTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 35810/09
O'KEEFFE v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 11002/05
ASSOCIATED SOCIETY OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND FIREMEN (ASLEF) c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 29555/13
F.O. v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 2660/03
HAJDUOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 46423/06
BEGANOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 28867/03
KEEGAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 68059/13
V.K. v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 21885/07
KUSHTOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11
KOWAL v. POLAND
- EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 2858/07
CIGERHUN ÖNER c. TURQUIE (n° 2)
- EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 34334/04
ASHOT HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 54522/00
KOTOV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 23022/13
D.M.D. v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04
ZALYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 29736/06
DAVTYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 26818/11
STOWARZYSZENIE ''POZNANSKA MASA KRYTYCZNA'' v. POLAND
- EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 29525/10
REMETIN v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 15526/10
V.D. v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07
MADER v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06
SHTEYN (STEIN) v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 38478/05
SANDRA JANKOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 22860/02
WOS v. POLAND
- EGMR, 07.03.2002 - 70276/01
GUSINSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 23914/15
GENDERDOC-M AND M.D. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 18356/11
Statt Zwillingen nur ein Kind: Türkin wird nach Fehldiagnose entschädigt
- EGMR, 23.11.2017 - 10633/15
TADIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7446/12
REMETIN v. CROATIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 7842/04
VERBINT v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 11.04.2023 - 46519/20
T.H. v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 71367/12
OGANEZOVA v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 01.04.2021 - 54476/14
PASTRAMA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 43422/07
ARNABOLDI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 43185/11
ELVAN ALKAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 41694/07
ISAKOVIC VIDOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 18310/06
PAULIUKIENE AND PAULIUKAS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 20325/06
MITYAGINY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 57693/10
KALUCZA v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 40116/02
SECIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 35083/97
GOUSSEV AND MARENK v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57884/00
KALANYOS AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00
GERGELY v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 18.11.2003 - 61302/00
BUZESCU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 06.09.2018 - 16883/15
STITIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 40425/11
AKTAS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 2788/11
DÖVME c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 3584/10
ARI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 42820/09
TUDOR v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 72964/10
RUMOR v. ITALY
- EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 36337/10
M.S. v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 9548/07
ILIEVA AND GEORGIEVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 28847/08
GLADOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 10424/05
KURKAEV v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 19.11.2009 - 18527/02
TONCHEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 35720/04
VRIONI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA AND ITALY
- EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 47709/99
RACHWALSKI AND FERENC v. POLAND
- EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 76581/01
VEREIN DER FREUNDE DER CHRISTENGEMEINSCHAFT AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 30314/02
INECIKLIOGLU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 25886/04
NAKÇI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 24245/03
D. ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 06.07.1999 - 42461/98
LEMESLE contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 44741/98
ZARMAKOUPIS ET SAKELLAROPOULOS contre la GRECE
- EGMR - 24228/18 (anhängig)
BIBA v. ALBANIA
- EGMR - 16764/23 (anhängig)
N.M. AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 14322/12
MILKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 38552/05
ABDULAYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 18773/05
TERLETSKAYA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 28326/09
P.F. AND E.F. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 25.03.2010 - 17765/07
GAZIBARIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 26.03.2009 - 36082/02
RADIONOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 27900/04
PALUSHI v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 38327/04
KOC ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 4773/02
SYCHEV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 4251/02
SALIBA v. MALTA
- EGMR, 12.09.2000 - 36790/97
ZHU v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 14.03.2000 - 31047/96
BERG v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 27.01.2000 - 34706/97
CATALANO contre l'ITALIE
- EGMR, 08.06.1999 - 31993/96
PREDIL ANSTALT S.A. contre l'ITALIE
- EGMR, 27.04.1999 - 44888/98
MARTINS CASIMIRO ET CERVEIRA FERREIRA contre le LUXEMBOURG
- EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 30402/96
BARRETT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 38435/13
B.V. AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 14492/03
PARAMSOTHY v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR - 3509/23 (anhängig)
D.I.T.P. v. ROMANIA and 1 other application
- EGMR, 23.08.2016 - 64953/14
KHOLODOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 68564/12
NAIBZAY v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 16.11.2010 - 12944/02
KULAKOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 23.10.2003 - 19846/02
MAROGLOU contre la GRECE
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
EDWARDS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 13 MRK
No violation of Art. 6 Not necessary to examine Art. 13 (englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 13 MRK
Non-violation de l'art. 6 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 13 (französisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 09.01.1991 - 13071/87
- EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87
Papierfundstellen
- Serie A Nr. 247-B
Wird zitiert von ... (345) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 26.03.1982 - 8269/78
Adolf ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87
La Cour conclut donc que l'instance d'appel a corrigé les déficiences du procès initial (voir, à cet égard, l'arrêt Adolf c. Autriche du 26 mars 1982, série A no 49, pp. 17-18, paras. 38-41, et, mutatis mutandis, l'arrêt De Cubber c. Belgique du 26 octobre 1984, série A no 86, p. 19, par. 33). - EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80
DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87
La Cour conclut donc que l'instance d'appel a corrigé les déficiences du procès initial (voir, à cet égard, l'arrêt Adolf c. Autriche du 26 mars 1982, série A no 49, pp. 17-18, paras. 38-41, et, mutatis mutandis, l'arrêt De Cubber c. Belgique du 26 octobre 1984, série A no 86, p. 19, par. 33). - EGMR, 12.10.1992 - 14104/88
T. c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87
La Cour rappelle que les exigences du paragraphe 3 de l'article 6 (art. 6-3) représentent des aspects particuliers du droit à un procès équitable, garanti par le paragraphe 1 (art. 6-1) (voir, en dernier lieu, l'arrêt T. c. Italie du 12 octobre 1992, série A no 245-C, p. 41, par. 25). - EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86
VIDAL c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87
La tâche de la Cour consiste à rechercher si la procédure litigieuse, envisagée en bloc, revêtit un caractère équitable, notamment quant au mode d'administration des preuves (voir, entre autres, l'arrêt Vidal c. Belgique du 22 avril 1992, série A no 235-B, pp. 32-33, par. 33).
- EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 61496/08
Überwachung privater Chatnachrichten des Arbeitnehmers durch den Arbeitgeber
Where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and it is for the latter to establish the facts on the basis of the evidence before them (see, among other authorities, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B). - EuGH, 15.10.2002 - C-238/99
Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij (LVM) / Kommission
DSM hat geltend gemacht, durch das beanstandete Verhalten sei auch gegen Artikel 6 EMRK verstoßen worden, der zwar keine speziellen Vorschriften über die Erlangung und Verwendung von Beweismitteln enthalte, aber nicht an der Prüfung hindere, ob ein Verfahren als Ganzes einschließlich der Art und Weise der Beweiserhebung fair abgelaufen sei (EGMR, Urteile Kostovski vom 20. November 1989, Serie A Nr. 166, § 39, Vidal vom 22. April 1992, Serie A Nr. 235 B, § 33, und Edwards vom 16. Dezember 1992, Serie A Nr. 247 B, § 34). - EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06
Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair
The Court reiterates in this respect that, in determining issues of fairness of proceedings for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention, it must consider the proceedings as a whole, including the decision of the appellate court (see, for example, the Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B).
- EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98
P.G. AND J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
En outre, l'article 6 § 1 contient l'obligation - le droit anglais le reconnaît du reste (paragraphe 30 ci-dessus) - pour les autorités de poursuite de communiquer à la défense tous les éléments importants, à charge ou à décharge (arrêt Edwards c. Royaume-Uni, 16 décembre 1992, série A no 247-B, p. 35, § 36). - EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 37553/05
KUDREVICIUS ET AUTRES c. LITUANIE
It is not normally within the province of the European Court to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for these courts to assess the evidence before them (see, inter alia, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B; Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, §§ 33-34, Series A no. 235-B; and Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 29, Series A no. 269). - EGMR, 25.07.2019 - 1586/15
ROOK v. GERMANY
Ganz abgesehen von der Gelegenheit, Kenntnis von den Stellungnahmen und Beweismitteln der Gegenseite zu nehmen und sich dazu zu äußern (vgl. Rdnrn. 56 bis 57;… vgl. auch Rowe und Davis./. Vereinigtes Königreich [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 28901/95, Rdnr. 60, ECHR 2000-II), erfordert das Recht auf ein kontradiktorisches Verfahren in einer Strafsache auch, dass die Strafverfolgungsbehörden der Verteidigung gegenüber sämtliche in ihrem Besitz befindliche maßgebliche Beweismittel ("material evidence"), die für oder gegen die beschuldigte Person sprechen, offenlegen (siehe Edwards./. Vereinigtes Königreich, 16. Dezember 1992, Rdnr. 36, Serie A Bd. 247-B, und Rowe und Davis, a.a.O., Rdnr. 60). - EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 39482/98
Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (rechtliches Gehör; Waffengleichheit; …
The Government submitted that the proceedings taken as a whole were fair and in accordance with Article 6 § 1. They contended, relying inter alia on Edwards v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B), that the prosecution's failure at first instance to disclose the actions and messages held on the Holmes Computer System and the materials gathered during the fraud inquiry did not deprive the applicant of a fair trial because this material was disclosed in time for the hearing in the Court of Appeal.The Court went on in the following paragraph to distinguish the case of Edwards v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B) on the grounds that at the appeal stage in that case the defence had received most of the information which had been missing at trial and the Court of Appeal was able to consider the impact of the new material on the safety of the conviction in the light of detailed and informed argument from the defence.
- EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89
KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE
It is further recalled that it is not normally within the province of the European Court to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for these courts to assess the evidence before them (see, inter alia, the Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, p. 12, para. 34, and the Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, paras. 33-34)."... it is not normally within the province of the European Court to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for these courts to assess the evidence before them (see, inter alia, the Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, p. 12, para. 34, and the Vidal v. B778elgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, paras. 33-34).".
- EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89
SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE
It considers, however, that the Federal Insurance Court remedied this shortcoming by requesting the Board to make all the documents available to the applicant - who was able, among other things, to make copies - and then forwarding the file to the applicant's lawyer (see, as the most recent authority, mutatis mutandis, the Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, paras. 34-39). - EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95
ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
La Cour rappelle que les exigences du paragraphe 3 de l'article 6 représentent des aspects particuliers du droit à un procès équitable garanti par le paragraphe 1 (arrêt Edwards c. Royaume-Uni du 16 décembre 1992, série A no 247-B, p. 34, § 33). - EGMR, 24.03.2011 - 23458/02
Tod eines Demonstranten beim G-8-Gipfel in Genua
- EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97
RIEPAN v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90
STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 15669/20
YÜKSEL YALÇINKAYA v. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91
TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 35289/11
REGNER c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
- EGMR, 12.03.2013 - 16281/10
AYDAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 16.11.2010 - 926/05
TAXQUET v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 65518/01
SALOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 06.01.2010 - 74181/01
VERA FERNANDEZ-HUIDOBRO c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 24.04.2007 - 40412/98
V. v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 29777/96
FITT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14553/89
BRANNIGAN ET McBRIDE c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 1049/17
NIKA v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10
MATYTSINA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.01.2002 - 64050/00
BARRIOS GARCIA contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 39943/98
BONAPART v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 17.01.1997 - 29335/95
CANNON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 61503/14
J.M. AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05
HUSEYN AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
- EKMR, 21.10.1998 - 36986/97
DU BOIS v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03
MELNITCHOUK c. UKRAINE
- EuGH, 15.10.2002 - C-251/99
Enichem / Kommission
- EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 45291/06
PREVITI c. ITALIE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 25.10.2001 - C-244/99
DSM und DSM Kunststoffen / Kommission
- EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 15319/09
HANSEN v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 19955/05
GRAYSON AND BARNHAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 02.05.2000 - 35718/97
CONDRON c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 18.01.2000 - 27618/95
PESTI AND FRODL v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 39846/98
BRENNAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 50275/08
ATAYKAYA c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 20496/02
SILICKIENE v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04
MIRILASHVILI v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 26986/03
GALSTYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 71525/01
DUMITRU POPESCU c. ROUMANIE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01
SHEYDAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 26260/02
GOLUBEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 60861/00
MANOILESCU AND DOBRESCU v. ROMANIA AND RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 50388/06
ELINÇ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 68939/12
CEROVSEK AND BOZICNIK v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 14974/09
GRAMADA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05
RASMUSSEN v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 27052/95
JASPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08
KASHLEV v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 14337/04
RADU POP v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 65550/01
KOVAL v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 72000/01
GÖÇMEN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 26937/04
TRESKA c. ALBANIE ET ITALIE
- EGMR, 19.09.2023 - 64144/14
COSTA SANTOS c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 4904/20
AL c. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 49756/09
YÜKSEL c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 15924/05
WELKE AND BIALEK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 44023/02
CAKA v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 839/02
MASLOVA AND NALBANDOV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 19.06.2003 - 28490/95
HULKI GÜNES v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 24016/05
EKER c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 6684/05
MCKEOWN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30251/03
ROMAN KARASEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 1883/03
VAQUERO HERNANDEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 24.04.2007 - 38184/03
MATYJEK c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 44069/98
G.B. v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 23.04.1998 - 22885/93
BERNARD v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 19.02.1996 - 16206/90
BOTTEN v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 9390/05
ALEKSANDRA DMITRIYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 30779/04
PATSURIA v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 51277/99
Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …
- EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 61406/00
GUREPKA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 02.03.1999 - 32492/96
COEME ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 20.09.1993 - 14647/89
SAÏDI v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 59173/08
URFANI YILDIZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 12951/11
VEITS v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 22965/10
YURTSEVER ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 25.02.2014 - 651/10
MAKBULE KAYMAZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 25330/07
JOKSAS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 41130/06
KELLY v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 21022/04
NATUNEN v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 37469/05
LUBOCH v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 46503/99
KLIMENTYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 45801/19
TUNÇ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 46435/09
MAKEYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 61808/08
GÜVENER c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.06.2013 - 22875/02
ROMENSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 5605/04
KARPENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 59577/08
LEAS v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 45140/05
BAYAV v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 30.06.2011 - 25041/07
MESSIER c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 28924/04
CHUYKINA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 36822/06
EBANKS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 03.09.2009 - 56305/08
GETOS-MAGDIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20292/04
ANANYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.08.2006 - 16469/05
OVLISEN v. DENMARK
- EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 10508/02
GJONBOCARI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 58263/00
TIMOFEYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 29522/95
I.J.L., G.M.R. AND A.K.P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 74017/17
MARTINS PEREIRA PENEDOS c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 47711/19
KUTSAROVI c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 44240/12
YAKOVLEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 59040/08
OKTAR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 39966/09
GILLISSEN v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 30582/04
KARPYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 30942/04
MIHAYLOVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29474/09
TAUTKUS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 35389/04
NITSOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.08.2011 - 5598/03
LISICHENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 75472/01
TIGRAN AYRAPETYAN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 18299/03
FINOGENOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 20808/02
SHALIMOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 2638/05
PETRU ROSCA v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 54091/08
PERVUSHIN AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 15737/02
ÖNGÜN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 1767/03
DAGDELEN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 10309/03
ARAT v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 20817/04
NART v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 7352/03
BESHIRI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 1414/03
MARES c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 34044/02
DEPALLE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 34078/02
BROSSET TRIBOULET ET AUTRE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 7508/02
L.L. c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 74587/01
LACAS contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 18.03.2003 - 61139/00
LE DUIGOU contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 57836/00
MELLORS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 42297/98
McMULLEN v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 30.04.2002 - 34090/96
W.B. v. POLAND
- EGMR, 04.12.2001 - 61133/00
LOPEZ SOLE Y MARTIN DE VARGAS contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 04.12.2001 - 59072/00
GONZALEZ DORIA DURAN DE QUIROGA contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 50720/99
ALVAREZ SANCHEZ contre l'ESPAGNE
- EKMR, 21.05.1997 - 24530/94
VODENICAROV v. THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 39979/08
TSAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 16980/06
PALCHIK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 40/14
AUSTIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 2308/06
SARANCHOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 42684/06
UMNIKOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 44103/05
NEDYALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 50135/12
KOVÁCS v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 34783/06
IZET HAXHIA v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 696/10
EKICI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 15499/10
BEGGS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 04.09.2012 - 13567/08
YAVUZKAPLAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 38623/05
PLOTNICOVA v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 42799/05
SOLOMON v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 26866/05
SHKALLA v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 18061/08
ALMEIDA E VASCONCELOS DE MELO c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 2573/03
HACIOGLU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 29.06.2010 - 12976/05
KARADAG c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 29512/08
TELEVANTOU v. CYPRUS
- EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 29517/08
CONSTANTINOU v. CYPRUS
- EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 28439/03
HAKAN DUMAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 25083/05
MAMIKONYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 31792/06
EVCIMEN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 28961/03
KOLCHINAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 37363/05
YURTSEVER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 18308/02
DIKICI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 30282/06
CHRISTODOULOU v. CYPRUS
- EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 17064/06
SHUB v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 34030/07
JALOWIECKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 23510/02
VITRENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 1991/04
GUNES v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 3460/03
SHEIDL v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 66446/01
GÖKTAS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 39656/03
ERDOGAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 30.08.2007 - 30461/02
CAGLAYAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 56891/00
BORISOVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 77361/01
DILDAR v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 35698/03
TENGERAKIS v. CYPRUS
- EGMR, 23.10.2006 - 9457/03
BACA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 15071/03
UCMA v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 31.08.2006 - 42086/02
YURTSEVER v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 7198/04
IOSUB CARAS v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 46213/99
ÖRS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 05.01.2006 - 8036/02
SAGAT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 8768/03
ZOUHAR c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 51796/99
SPASOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 25.08.2005 - 431/04
ARANDA SERRANO c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 23.06.2005 - 38261/03
PAPALIA c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 28.10.2004 - 47153/99
VANPRAET c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 07.10.2004 - 76809/01
BAUMANN v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 32447/02
PIRINEN v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 59028/00
STANCA contre la ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 46825/99
CLAES, COËME, DASSAULT, PUELINCKX, WALLYN, HERMANUS et DELANGHE contre la …
- EGMR, 04.11.2003 - 31548/02
BELLERIN LAGARES c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 61178/00
GAUTHIER contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 20.05.2003 - 32456/96
DINDAR contre la TURQUIE
- EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 68416/01
STEEL and MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 46170/99
ZIROVNICKY contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 63486/00
POSOKHOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 45689/99
VAUGHAN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 39482/98
DOWSETT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 30.04.2002 - 58116/00
PFLEGER contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 64935/01
CHMELIR contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 63250/00
VAQUE RAFART contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 05.03.2002 - 61281/00
MENDEZ GUTIERREZ et PINDADO MARTINEZ contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 19.02.2002 - 65892/01
RAMOS RUIZ contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 18.09.2001 - 49104/99
PUELINCKX contre la BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 21.06.2001 - 45132/98
GAUDER v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 15.03.2001 - 48629/99
ARANITI contre l'ITALIE
- EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 45441/99
PULLICINO v. MALTA
- EGMR, 06.01.2000 - 42916/98
TORRENTS BAUZA, BORRALLO RUBIO, BALTIERREZ ALTIER ET PRATS SANROMA contre …
- EKMR, 15.09.1997 - 27052/95
JASPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 15.09.1997 - 29777/96
FITT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 27.02.1995 - 23229/94
H.H. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 66355/11
SEVASTYANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 6427/05
GASANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 13039/11
KOLOSOV v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 39813/04
AKYÜZ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 34564/06
ÖZTAS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 22.04.2014 - 28334/08
R.E. c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 60449/08
ÖZER v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 59651/13
DORCA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 60375/11
ASLAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 37768/08
BEZNEA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 53337/11
AYDIN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 44977/09
KISLYAK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 33872/05
STEPANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 15651/08
OZAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 39105/09
KARAKASOGLU v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 7039/04
CHERKASOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.06.2011 - 30754/03
KLOUVI c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 50399/07
GORNY v. POLAND
- EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 32456/04
KOPECKÝ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 28680/06
A.D. AND O.D. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 21.01.2010 - 35064/04
TYURIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 28552/05
JANATUINEN v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 27577/04
SENTÜRK v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 10.11.2009 - 7618/07
MINHAS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 74307/01
GÖK AND GÜLER v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 8883/02
KIRICHENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 31338/04
BOYARCHENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 17857/03
NEATA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 30698/04
VAVRENYUK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 39453/02
TARASYUK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 39084/02
VOVK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 37294/04
HAYES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 20.11.2007 - 5197/03
DEMIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 68761/01
BOBEK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 15187/03
BOTMEH AND ALAMI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 33675/02
SEVER AND ASLAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.11.2006 - 57656/00
PORYAZOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 70786/01
ROSENGREN v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 74831/01
TRUSOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 12710/04
BETSON AND COCKRAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 4591/04
GUNNARSSON v. ICELAND
- EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 20131/02
KUPPAR c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 65167/01
PRONINA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 35450/02
ARVANITIS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 12141/04
LATIMER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 71047/01
BERKOUCHE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 21581/02
SKONDRIANOU c. GRECE
- EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 59457/00
RAJCOOMAR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 31.08.2004 - 410/02
JOHANS v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 23.03.2004 - 41588/98
CAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 10.02.2004 - 18905/02
CARNDUFF v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 27.01.2004 - 44484/98
LORSE v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 18.11.2003 - 54109/00
CHADWICK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 30.09.2003 - 77245/01
AVIA FERRER contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 02.09.2003 - 14180/03
RANSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 43791/98
NOVÁK c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 20.05.2003 - 74208/01
RIEKWEL v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 04.03.2003 - 28231/02
DENTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 21.01.2003 - 4491/02
NOYE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 74760/01
GIORDANO et TARANTINO contre l'ITALIE
- EGMR, 27.10.2002 - 35361/02
AKGÜN contre la TURQUIE
- EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 44305/98
SNOOKS and DOWSE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 44696/98
MUJEA contre la ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 24541/94
WIERZBICKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 24.01.2002 - 43467/98
TURQUIN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 19.12.2001 - 43373/98
C.G. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 11.10.2001 - 58916/00
J.M. P.U. contre ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 20.09.2001 - 53610/99
VAZQUEZ BARRENO contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 21.11.2000 - 34547/97
KASPERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 14.09.2000 - 48729/99
NVONO ECORO contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 43286/98
ECHEVERRI RODRIGUEZ v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 16.05.2000 - 40042/98
GEORGIOU v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 46253/99
UBACH MORTES v. ANDORRA
- EGMR, 23.03.2000 - 45249/99
CONDE CONDE contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 51760/99
CAMILLERI v. MALTA
- EGMR, 10.02.2000 - 45238/99
PEROTE PELLON contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 23.11.1999 - 46290/99
A.J.D. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 05.10.1999 - 45253/99
FOLLA GOMEZ contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 24.08.1999 - 42186/98
OMAR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 12.07.1999 - 27665/95
LANTTO v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 01.06.1999 - 41777/98
R.K. contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 01.06.1999 - 43828/98
KANGASNIEMI v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 11.05.1999 - 39661/98
A.J. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 09.03.1999 - 33399/96
KOSTU contre l'ITALIE
- EGMR, 02.03.1999 - 41539/98
NUNEZ VILLANUEVA contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 12.01.1999 - 40379/98
LAGO GARCIA ET OUBINA PINEIRO contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 15.12.1998 - 40180/98
A.E.D.L.G. contre l'ESPAGNE
- EKMR, 15.09.1997 - 38901/95
ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 11.09.1997 - 32874/96
MOORE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 27837/95
KINGSTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 29522/95
I.J.L., G.M.R. AND A.K.P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 17.01.1997 - 30539/96
SMITH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 29424/95
REES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 16.10.1996 - 24399/94
MENNIE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 15.01.1996 - 25982/94
FLANDERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 05.07.1994 - 21921/93
R.A.G. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 12.11.2019 - 20391/16
MURRAY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 18428/10
KRSTIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 31777/05
O'FARRELL AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 30542/04
D. v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 32671/02
SKORIK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 27740/03
SEVK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 22.05.2006 - 8035/05
PINEIRO NOGUEIRA c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 40412/98
V. v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 45830/99
JUHA NUUTINEN v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 19247/02
FEHR v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 02.12.2004 - 32219/02
MILAN c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 12.09.2002 - 42585/98
INTIBA contre la TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.09.2002 - 43185/98
PRICE and LOWE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 11.04.2001 - 43373/98
C.G. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 31.08.1999 - 35253/97
VERDAM v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 38759/12
YOUNG v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 47720/08
DURMAZ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 25745/07
AYDOGDU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 34865/07
STICHTING VOOR EDUCATIE EN BEROEPSONDERWIJS ZADKINE v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 14198/02
TATENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 04.09.2006 - 942/05
MONEDERO MARTIN c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 10.05.2005 - 19354/02
THOMAS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 21.01.2003 - 60590/00
MANSELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 03.12.2002 - 78023/01
SALA I GRISO contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 23.04.2002 - 48040/99
ZHELEZOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.11.2001 - 42246/98
JOHNSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 42965/98
BERISHA v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 43550/98
MATO JARA contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 13.01.2000 - 45138/98
GEORGIOU v. GREECE
- EGMR, 14.09.1999 - 32523/96
HILDEN v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 06.07.1999 - 30550/96
O'KANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 12.01.1999 - 36686/97
S.E. contre l'ITALIE
- EGMR, 15.12.1998 - 43472/98
FERRARI contre l'ITALIE
- EKMR, 21.10.1998 - 38061/97
CAVLUN v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 33995/96
MAMBRO AND FIORAVANTI v. ITALY
- EKMR, 22.10.1997 - 26304/95
LINDQVIST v. SWEDEN
- EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 30551/96
CARTLEDGE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 24238/94
PIAZZI v. ITALY
- EKMR, 06.04.1995 - 24774/94
A.K. v. THE NETHERLANDS