Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement) Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 13 Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FAYED v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) No violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 13 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 15.05.1992 - 17101/90
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

Papierfundstellen

• Serie A Nr. 294-B

Wird zitiert von ... (237)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 30.11.1987 - 8950/80

  H. v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  [1] See, inter alios, the separate opinion of Judge De Meyer in the case of H. v. Belgium (judgment of 30 November 1987, Series A no. 127-B, pp. 48 et seq.).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  The Court therefore has jurisdiction to entertain it (see the Artico v. Italy judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, pp. 12-13, paras. 24 and 27).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  These principles reflect the process, inherent in the Court's task under the Convention, of striking a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see, inter alia, the Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 26, para. 69).

 
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  HELMERS c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  Having regard to the cases of Golder v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 13, para. 27) and Helmers v. Sweden (judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 14, para. 27), the respondent Government did not dispute the existence and "civil" character of the right under English law to a good reputation.
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  If the Court were to treat the facts underlying the complaints declared admissible by the Commission as raising a substantive, rather than a procedural, complaint going to the right to respect for private life under Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention - as it has jurisdiction to do (see the Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, pp. 19-20, para. 41) -, the same central issues of legitimate aim and proportionality as under Article 6 para.
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  (Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 71, para. 194, citing the Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, pp. 24-25, para. 57).
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  (Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 71, para. 194, citing the Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, pp. 24-25, para. 57).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  1] (art. 6-1) does not in itself guarantee any particular content for (civil) "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States" (see, inter alia, the James and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, pp. 46-47, para. 81; and the Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p.16, para. 36).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  2 (art. 10-2) of the Convention (see the Oberschlick v. Austria judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, p. 26, para. 59).
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  1 (art. 6-1) into play (see, inter alia, the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, pp. 20-22, paras. 44-50).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

• BGH, 16.12.2014 - VI ZR 39/14

  Unterlassungsanspruch wegen herabsetzender Äußerungen über ein Unternehmen: …

  Dementsprechend muss sich ein Gewerbetreibender wertende, nicht mit unwahren Tatsachenbehauptungen verbundene Kritik an seiner gewerblichen Leistung in der Regel auch dann gefallen lassen, wenn sie scharf formuliert ist (vgl. Senatsurteile vom 21. April 1998 - VI ZR 196/97, BGHZ 138, 311, 320; vom 29. Januar 2002 - VI ZR 20/01, AfP 2002, 169, 171;… vom 22. September 2009 - VI ZR 19/08, AfP 2009, 588 Rn. 21; EGMR NJW 2006, 1255, 1259 Rn. 94 - Steel und Morris/Vereinigtes Königreich sowie 1994, Serie A, Bd. 294-B, Nr. 75 = ÖstJZ 1995, 436, 438 f. - Fayed/Vereinigtes Königreich).

  Zu Gunsten des Beklagten ist weiter zu berücksichtigen, dass er seine Äußerungen nicht im Rahmen einer privaten Auseinandersetzung zur Verfolgung von Eigeninteressen gemacht, sondern ein Informationsanliegen im Zusammenhang mit einer die Verbraucher wesentlich berührenden Frage verfolgt hat (vgl. Senatsurteile vom 21. April 1998 - VI ZR 196/97, BGHZ 138, 311, 320;… vom 2. Dezember 2008 - VI ZR 219/06, AfP 2009, 55 Rn. 18;… vom 22. September 2009 - VI ZR 19/08, AfP 2009, 588 Rn. 21; BVerfG, NJW-RR 2004, 1710, 1712; EGMR NJW 2006, 1255, 1259 Rn. 94 - Steel und Morris/Vereinigtes Königreich sowie 1994, Serie A, Bd. 294-B, Nr. 75 = ÖstJZ 1995, 436, 438 f. - Fayed/Vereinigtes Königreich).

• BGH, 22.09.2009 - VI ZR 19/08

  Meinungsfreiheit bei kritischen Äußerungen über ein Unternehmen und dessen …

  Deshalb sind die Grenzen zulässiger Kritik ihm gegenüber ebenso wie gegenüber ihren Führungskräften weiter gezogen (vgl. Senatsurteile vom 29. Januar 2002 - VI ZR 20/01 - VersR 2002, 445, 446;… vom 16. November 2004 - VI ZR 298/03 - aaO; vom 21. November 2006 - VI ZR 259/05 - VersR 2007, 511, 512; EGMR NJW 2006, 1255, 1259 Rn. 94 - Steel und Morris/ Vereinigtes Königreich sowie 1994, Serie A, Bd. 294-B, Nr. 75 - Fayed/ Vereinigtes Königreich).
• EGMR, 17.12.1996 - 19187/91

  SAUNDERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Their purpose was to ascertain and record facts which might subsequently be used as the basis for action by other competent authorities - prosecuting, regulatory, disciplinary or even legislative (judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, p. 47, para. 61).

  The majority refer at paragraph 67 of the judgment to the Court's earlier judgment in Fayed v. the United Kingdom (21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B) where it is stated that the purpose of investigations such as the one at issue "was to ascertain and record facts which might subsequently be used as the basis for action by other competent authorities - prosecuting, regulatory, disciplinary or even legislative".

  However, the Court appears to have decided the issue, although confining itself to a summary reference to the Deweer v. Belgium and Fayed v. the United Kingdom judgments (27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, and 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B), without taking account of the fact that the issue to be decided differs from the ones that arose in those two cases and without putting forward any argument apt to support its position.

  [22] See the Court's judgment of 21 September 1994 in the case of Fayed v. the United Kingdom, Series A no. 294-B, pp.

 
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  ROTARU v. ROMANIA

  Arrêt Fayed c. Royaume-Uni du 21 septembre 1994, série A no 294-B, pp.
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  That decision concerned only one aspect of the exercise of local authorities' powers and duties and cannot be regarded as an arbitrary removal of the courts' jurisdiction to determine a whole range of civil claims (see Fayed v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, pp. 49-50, § 65).

  Paragraph 98 of the judgment refers to Fayed v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B).

  In Fayed v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, pp. 49-50, § 65), the Court said:.

• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 5809/08

  AL-DULIMI AND MONTANA MANAGEMENT INC. v. SWITZERLAND

  In other words, the Court may not create by way of interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see, for example, Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B, and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X).

  It would not be consistent with the rule of law in a democratic society or with the basic principle underlying Article 6 § 1 - namely that civil claims must be capable of being submitted to a judge for adjudication - if a State could, without restraint or control by the Convention enforcement bodies, remove from the jurisdiction of the courts a whole range of civil claims or confer immunities from liability on categories of persons (see Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B).

  Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93, and Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B.

• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94

  WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY

  En outre, pareille limitation ne se concilie avec l'article 6 § 1 que si elle tend à un but légitime et s'il existe un rapport raisonnable de proportionnalité entre les moyens employés et le but visé (voir l'arrêt Osman précité, p. 3169, § 147, et le rappel des principes pertinents dans l'arrêt Fayed c. Royaume-Uni du 21 septembre 1994, série A n° 294-B, pp. 49-50, § 65).
• EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 23452/94

  OSMAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Je rappelle à ce propos que la Cour a souligné à certaines occasions qu'il suffit au requérant de démontrer que l'on peut dire, au moins de manière défendable, que le droit en cause est reconnu en droit interne (voir, entre autres, l'arrêt Fayed c. Royaume-Uni du 21 septembre 1994, série A n° 294-B, p. 49, § 65) ; en dernière analyse, c'est à la Cour qu'il incombe, dans l'exercice de sa compétence de contrôle et à partir des critères établis par la Convention, de dire si le requérant a démontré qu'il en était bien ainsi.
• EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 35763/97

  AL-ADSANI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  However, it would not be consistent with the rule of law in a democratic society or with the basic principle underlying Article 6 § 1 - namely that civil claims must be capable of being submitted to a judge for adjudication - if, for example, a State could, without restraint or control by the Convention enforcement bodies, remove from the jurisdiction of the courts a whole range of civil claims or confer immunities from civil liability on large groups or categories of persons (see Fayed v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, pp. 49-50, § 65).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Certes, les grandes entreprises s'exposent inévitablement et sciemment à un examen attentif de leurs actes et, de même que pour les hommes et les femmes d'affaires qui les dirigent, les limites de la critique admissible sont plus larges en ce qui les concerne (Fayed c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 21 septembre 1994, série A no 294-B, p. 53, § 75).
• OLG Düsseldorf, 20.10.2017 - 16 U 87/17

  Abgrenzung von Tatsachenbehauptungen und Meinungsäußerungen bei der Verbreitung …
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE
• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EuG, 12.12.2006 - T-228/02

  und Sicherheitspolitik - DAS GERICHT ERKLÄRT DEN BESCHLUSS DES RATES FÜR NICHTIG, …
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 13.07.2017 - C-194/16

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Bobek kann eine Gesellschaft, die eine Verletzung …
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 34356/06

  Immunität gilt auch bei Folter
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03

  MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 35373/97

  A. c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 35289/11

  REGNER c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
• EGMR, 26.08.1997 - 22110/93

  BALMER-SCHAFROTH AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 19235/03

  MARTTINEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 23.02.1995 - 15375/89

  GASUS DOSIER- UND FÖRDERTECHNIK GmbH v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 51500/08

  ÇAM c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 40877/98

  CORDOVA c. ITALIE (N° 1)
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 46967/07

  C.G.I.L. ET COFFERATI c. ITALIE
• OLG Düsseldorf, 21.02.2019 - 16 U 179/17

  Unterlassung einer veröffentlichten Wortberichterstattung
• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 62543/00

  GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 5809/08

  Der "Kadi"-Moment des EGMR
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95

  ATHANASSOGLOU ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99

  POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13092/87

  THE HOLY MONASTERIES v. GREECE
• EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 23605/09

  Zu den Grenzen des Spekulationsjournalismus
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 37575/04

  BOULOIS c. LUXEMBOURG
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 74912/01

  ENEA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 45649/99

  CORDOVA v. ITALY (No. 2)
• EGMR, 29.05.2001 - 46295/99

  STAFFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 15869/02

  CUDAK v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 15.12.2020 - 33399/18

  PISKIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 56665/09

  KÁROLY NAGY c. HONGRIE
• EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 80982/12

  MUHAMMAD ET MUHAMMAD c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 33221/96

  REID v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 73936/01

  DE JORIO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 156/04

  WALLISHAUSER v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 01.07.1998 - 32003/96

  BROMFIELD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 01.07.1998 - 34733/97

  A.N. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94

  BELLET c. FRANCE
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 09.06.2011 - C-163/10

  Generalanwalt Niilo Jääskinen erläutert die Bedeutung des Begriffs "in Ausübung …
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 22860/02

  WOS c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 37112/97

  FOGARTY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 14717/04

  BERGER-KRALL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 31253/96

  McELHINNEY v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 76943/11

  PAROISSE GRÉCO-CATHOLIQUE LUPENI ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 8917/05

  Kart ./. Türkei
• EGMR, 15.07.2003 - 33400/96

  ERNST ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 25.01.2024 - 28535/15

  KONOPLIANKO v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 49849/08

  TRUCKENBRODT v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 49636/99

  CHEVROL c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 34791/97

  KHALFAOUI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 48173/18

  CANGI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 78060/01

  PETRINA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 26780/95

  ESCOUBET v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 28934/95

  BEER AND REGAN v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 38334/08

  ANCHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  KÁROLY NAGY v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 9718/03

  GEORGEL AND GEORGETA STOICESCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 19334/03

  DMD GROUP, A.S., v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07

  BILGEN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 3514/02

  EERIKAINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 09.05.2006 - 60255/00

  PEREIRA HENRIQUES c. LUXEMBOURG
• EGMR, 30.10.2003 - 41576/98

  GANCI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 48762/19

  BIELINSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 43892/04

  PENNINO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 18880/15

  PAPAIOANNOU c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 45835/05

  SHAPOVALOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 696/05

  DASSA FOUNDATION AND OTHERS v. LIECHTENSTEIN
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 7233/04

  GOBEC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 19673/03

  GRYAZNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2007 - 38972/06

  GIUSTO, BORNACIN AND V. v. ITALY
• EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 10180/04

  PATRONO, CASCINI ET STEFANELLI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 35178/97

  ANKARCRONA c. SUEDE
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 40378/10

  FAZIA ALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 36703/04

  OLEYNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 24779/08

  ANAGNOSTOU-DEDOULI c. GRECE
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 35795/02

  ASCIUTTO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 42864/05

  TIMPUL INFO-MAGAZIN AND ANGHEL v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 23.10.1996 - 21920/93

  LEVAGES PRESTATIONS SERVICES v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 69939/10

  OJALA AND ETUKENO OY v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 36084/06

  PASHAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 16330/02

  GÜLMEZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 18648/04

  McDONALD c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 06.07.2004 - 11810/03

  MAURICE contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.07.1998 - 20390/92

  TINNELLY & SONS LTD AND OTHERS AND McELDUFF AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 27783/95

  R.T. v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 31517/12

  MIESSEN c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 53723/13

  ZAVODNIK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 04.02.2014 - 29907/07

  STAIBANO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 21788/06

  BALAKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 30164/03

  NEGREANU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 25498/08

  KRISTIANSEN AND TYVIK AS v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 2555/03

  GUADAGNINO c. ITALIE ET FRANCE
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 72377/01

  SARL DU PARC D'ACTIVITES DE BLOTZHEIM c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 23053/02

  IELO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 61164/00

  BARBE et AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 29522/95

  I.J.L., G.M.R. AND A.K.P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 29.07.1998 - 24767/94

  OMAR v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 31012/19

  BAKOYANNI v. GREECE
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 68747/11

  ZACHOULIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05

  TERESHCHENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.02.2014 - 29932/07

  MOTTOLA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 66456/09

  RISTAMÄKI AND KORVOLA v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 9765/09

  DE BRUIN v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 49069/11

  NATALIYA MIKHAYLENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 4543/09

  DUKIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 26619/07

  MACEDO DA COSTA c. LUXEMBOURG
• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 52531/07

  ZALLI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 9125/07

  PENTTINEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 34615/02

  KRAVCHENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 15239/02

  VELTED-98 AD c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 2010/06

  KEHOE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 28104/03

  RAICU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 24358/02

  CAMPISI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 14021/02

  KAUFMANN c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 23053/02

  IELO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 06.07.2004 - 1513/03

  DRAON et DRAON contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 73936/01

  DE JORIO contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 32872/96

  PELTIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 45424/99

  TRUHLI v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 27.03.2001 - 35585/97

  KERVOÊLEN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 40224/98

  DUDOVA et DUDA contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 26.10.1999 - 38459/97

  VARIPATI c. GRECE
• EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 38817/97

  LENZING AG c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EKMR, 14.04.1998 - 25046/94

  GROF c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 18912/15

  VUJOVIC AND LIPA D.O.O. v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 45197/13

  RADUNOVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 39393/09

  IDEP S.A. ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 5682/06

  SERGEY ZUBAREV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 54341/11

  MILIARESSIS-FOCAS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 31383/13

  SMILJAN PERVAN v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 67939/10

  DUMITRESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 17232/04

  BALASOIU c. ROUMANIE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 07.09.2010 - 19479/03

  BARONCHELLI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 35601/04

  POCIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 16965/04

  UZUKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 46194/06

  STEGARESCU ET BAHRIN c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 20690/06

  KOIVUSAARI AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 37341/04

  KIKOLASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 76593/01

  KOLOVANGINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 61596/00

  ATANASOV AND OVCHAROV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 53321/99

  KARAMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 37087/04

  FREUDIGER c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 5548/03

  HAJIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 11801/04

  TSALKITZIS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 16.10.2006 - 20594/02

  TZVYATKOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 8316/02

  VIOLA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 56317/00

  ARGENTI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 20.11.2003 - 71563/01

  DIAMANTIDES contre la GRECE
• EGMR, 23.09.2003 - 63356/00

  KERR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 45681/99

  GUTFREUND c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.06.2003 - 57735/00

  GOURDON contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 53934/00

  SOCIETE ANTHROPOSOPHIQUE EN FRANCE contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 40253/98

  SALOMONSON and OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 22.11.2001 - 41978/98

  BOZHILOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 42007/98

  DAVIES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 21.06.2001 - 45132/98

  GAUDER v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 39485/98

  LAGRANGE c. FRANCE
• EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 25353/94

  McMULLEN v. IRELAND
• EGMR - 37988/21 (anhängig)

  GRINNEMO AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 05.05.2020 - 54839/17

  MADZAROVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 66952/12

  NEAGU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 28324/05

  BALYULIN c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 41547/08

  COSTUT c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 62793/10

  DUNN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 24895/07

  SYNGELIDIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 18195/06

  PIERRE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 36767/02

  YUCESOY c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 34971/02

  ESPOSITO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 18836/02

  LE CALVEZ c. FRANCE N° 2
• EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 34489/03

  BOUILLOC c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 18059/04

  TASTANIDIS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 6225/04

  MAVROMATIS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 05.01.2006 - 4095/02

  POLICHOUK c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 171/03

  REVEL ET MORA c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 4591/04

  GUNNARSSON v. ICELAND
• EGMR, 13.01.2005 - 59654/00

  IORGULESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 33695/96

  MUSUMECI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 31.08.2004 - 46841/99

  SKYRADIO AG ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 19.06.2003 - 54161/00

  LAPEYRE contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 18.03.2003 - 48897/99

  S.A.R.L. DU PARC D'ACTIVITES DE BLOTZHEIM ET LA S.C.I. HASELAECKER contre la …
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 45676/99

  MAILLET contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 25.04.2002 - 63548/00

  DELORD contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 11.09.2001 - 45049/98

  CLUNIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 14.06.2001 - 45004/98

  STANCZUK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 15.02.2001 - 53823/00

  TSOUKALA ET AUTRES contre la GRECE
• EGMR, 07.03.2000 - 45396/99

  CRAIG v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 02.03.2000 - 27543/95

  DIONISI ET MAGNANTE contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 07.12.1999 - 44071/98

  KERR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 30.10.1998 - 38212/97

  F.E. c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 29.07.1998 - 25201/94

  GUÉRIN v. FRANCE
• EKMR, 01.07.1998 - 32875/96

  RYAN 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, 04.09.1996 - 28610/95

  HANDWERKER v. GERMANY
• EKMR, 27.06.1996 - 26335/95

  VERENIGING RADIO 100, DE RAAIJ, FOLLON, STRAUS AND SWART v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 22237/93

  BRYAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 07.03.1996 - 23908/94

  M.F.B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 26663/95

  TEE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 17.01.1996 - 29099/95

  Ó'FAOLAIN v. IRELAND
• EKMR, 16.01.1996 - 24397/94

  WEH v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 23458/94

  HOTEL CASINO AREGUA PARANA AG v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 17.05.1995 - 22335/93

  MÜLLER v. SWITZERLAND
• EKMR, 17.05.1995 - 22814/93

  K.N. v. SWITZERLAND
• EKMR, 17.05.1995 - 24101/94

  MÜLLER v. SWITZERLAND
• EKMR, 17.05.1995 - 22441/93

  J.M. v. SWITZERLAND
• EKMR, 17.05.1995 - 23855/94

  MÜLLER v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 17402/08

  LANSCHÜTZER GMBH v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 24931/07

  JAURRIETA ORTIGALA v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 14397/04

  FIRST SOFIA COMMODITIES EOOD AND PARAGH v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 2/08

  C.G.I.L. ET COFFERATI N° 2 c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 36586/08

  SOMMER c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 4020/03

  PIPI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 07.03.2006 - 73893/01

  BESSEAU c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 63026/00

  FEDERATION NATIONALE DES FAMILLES DE FRANCE v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.06.2003 - 49589/99

  TAYLOR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 28485/95

  GLASS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 27943/95

  ABAS c. PAYS-BAS
• EKMR, 17.01.1996 - 25646/94

  YOUNG v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 24851/10

  DEBÚT ZRT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 970/04

  SULTANA v. MALTA
• EGMR, 10.04.2007 - 26886/03

  STIFTUNG GIESSBACH DEM SCHWEIZERVOLK ET PARKHOTEL GIESSBACH AG c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 7856/02

  MIONE contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 27.09.2001 - 48628/99

  AY AND AY-AKGUEL v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 13.09.2001 - 50495/99

  BALMER-SCHAFROTH AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND
• EKMR, 21.10.1998 - 38857/97

  PIECHOWICZ v. POLAND
• EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 37650/97

  MANNERS AND 4 OTHERS v. the United Kingdom