Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DE TOMMASO v. ITALY
Remainder inadmissible;Struck out of the list (Article 37-1-c - Continued examination not justified);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-general (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement);Violation of Article 6 - Right ...
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DE TOMMASO c. ITALIE
Partiellement irrecevable;Radiation du rôle (Article 37-1-c - Poursuite de l'examen non justifiée);Violation de l'article 2 du Protocole n° 4 - Liberté de circulation-général (article 2 al. 1 du Protocole n° 4 - Liberté de circulation);Violation de l'article 6 ...
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DE TOMMASO v. ITALY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-general (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil ...
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[FRE]
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
De Tommaso v. Italy
[20.05.2015]
Papierfundstellen
- NVwZ-RR 2018, 651
Wird zitiert von ... (114) Neu Zitiert selbst (46)
- EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76
GUZZARDI v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
In his submission, the present case was comparable to Guzzardi v. Italy (6 November 1980, Series A no. 39), in which the Court had found that in view of the particular circumstances of the case, the applicant - who had been subjected to similar measures to those imposed on the applicant in the present case - had been deprived of his liberty, and that there had been a violation of Article 5.In a subsequent case brought by the same applicant, the Court concluded that in view of the particular circumstances of the case, the applicant had been "deprived of his liberty" within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (see Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 95, Series A no. 39).
In particular, the applicant in the instant case, unlike the one in Guzzardi (6 November 1980, § 108, Series A no. 39), was indeed not forced to live on an island, but the "preventive" measures were imposed on him for a much longer period - 221 days (and nights) as against 165 days in Guzzardi.
Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39.
- EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87
RAIMONDO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
They pointed out that, in accordance with the Court's settled case-law (referring to Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 39, Series A no. 281-A; Villa v. Italy, no. 19675/06, §§ 41-43, 20 April 2010; and Monno v. Italy (dec.), no. 18675/09, §§ 21-23, 8 October 2013), obligations resulting from preventive measures did not amount to deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention, but merely to restrictions on liberty of movement.Since the Guzzardi judgment, the Court has dealt with a number of cases (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 39, Series A no. 281-A; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 193, ECHR 2000-IV; Vito Sante Santoro v. Italy, no. 36681/97, § 37, ECHR 2004-VI; and also, mutatis mutandis, Villa v. Italy, no. 19675/06, §§ 43-44, 20 April 2010, and Monno v. Italy (dec.), no. 18675/09, §§ 21-23, 8 October 2013) concerning special supervision together with a compulsory residence order and other associated restrictions (not leaving home at night, not travelling away from the place of residence, not going to bars, nightclubs, amusement arcades or brothels or attending public meetings, not associating with individuals who had a criminal record and who were subject to preventive measures).
To substantiate this, the majority refer to Guzzardi (cited above, § 108) and Raimondo v. Italy (no. 12954/87, 22 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 281-A).
See Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 195, ECHR 2000-IV; Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 39, Series A no. 281-A; and Ciancimino v. Italy, no. 12541/86, Commission decision of 27 May 1991, Decisions and Reports 70. In the domestic case-law, see, for example, Court of Cassation, United Sections, 3 July 1996, Simonelli, and Court of Cassation, Section I, 17 January 2008, no. 6613.
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
The Court notes that since the Guzzardi case, it has dealt with a number of cases (Raimondo, cited above, § 39; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 193, ECHR 2000-IV; Vito Sante Santoro v. Italy, no. 36681/97, § 37, ECHR 2004-VI; see also, mutatis mutandis, Villa, cited above, §§ 43-44, and Monno, cited above, §§ 22-23) concerning special supervision together with a compulsory residence order and other associated restrictions (not leaving home at night, not travelling away from the place of residence, not going to bars, nightclubs, amusement arcades or brothels or attending public meetings, not associating with individuals who had a criminal record and who were subject to preventive measures).Since the Guzzardi judgment, the Court has dealt with a number of cases (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 39, Series A no. 281-A; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 193, ECHR 2000-IV; Vito Sante Santoro v. Italy, no. 36681/97, § 37, ECHR 2004-VI; and also, mutatis mutandis, Villa v. Italy, no. 19675/06, §§ 43-44, 20 April 2010, and Monno v. Italy (dec.), no. 18675/09, §§ 21-23, 8 October 2013) concerning special supervision together with a compulsory residence order and other associated restrictions (not leaving home at night, not travelling away from the place of residence, not going to bars, nightclubs, amusement arcades or brothels or attending public meetings, not associating with individuals who had a criminal record and who were subject to preventive measures).
See Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 195, ECHR 2000-IV; Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 39, Series A no. 281-A; and Ciancimino v. Italy, no. 12541/86, Commission decision of 27 May 1991, Decisions and Reports 70. In the domestic case-law, see, for example, Court of Cassation, United Sections, 3 July 1996, Simonelli, and Court of Cassation, Section I, 17 January 2008, no. 6613.
- EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 18675/09
S.M. c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
Since the Guzzardi judgment, the Court has dealt with a number of cases (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 39, Series A no. 281-A; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 193, ECHR 2000-IV; Vito Sante Santoro v. Italy, no. 36681/97, § 37, ECHR 2004-VI; and also, mutatis mutandis, Villa v. Italy, no. 19675/06, §§ 43-44, 20 April 2010, and Monno v. Italy (dec.), no. 18675/09, §§ 21-23, 8 October 2013) concerning special supervision together with a compulsory residence order and other associated restrictions (not leaving home at night, not travelling away from the place of residence, not going to bars, nightclubs, amusement arcades or brothels or attending public meetings, not associating with individuals who had a criminal record and who were subject to preventive measures).Monno v. Italy (dec.), no. 18675/09, 8 October 2013.
- EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09
AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, § 57, ECHR 2012; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 115, ECHR 2012; and Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, § 73, ECHR 2010).Ibid., §§ 92-93; see also Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 225, ECHR 2012; Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, § 57, ECHR 2012; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 115, ECHR 2012; and Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, § 73, ECHR 2010.
- EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06
STANEV c. BULGARIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, § 57, ECHR 2012; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 115, ECHR 2012; and Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, § 73, ECHR 2010).Ibid., §§ 92-93; see also Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 225, ECHR 2012; Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, § 57, ECHR 2012; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 115, ECHR 2012; and Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, § 73, ECHR 2010.
- EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 40896/98
NIKOLOVA AND 2 OTHER CASES AGAINST BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
It reiterates that house arrest is considered, in view of its degree and intensity (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 104, ECHR 2016), to amount to deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (see N.C. v. Italy, no. 24952/94, § 33, 11 January 2001; Nikolova v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 40896/98, §§ 60 and 74, 30 September 2004; Danov v. Bulgaria, no. 56796/00, §§ 61 and 80, 26 October 2006; and Ninescu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 47306/07, § 53, 15 July 2014).Contrast Danov v. Bulgaria, no. 56796/00, 26 October 2006; Mancini, cited above, § 20; Nikolova v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 40896/98, 30 September 2004; and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 64, ECHR 2004-VIII.
- EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91
Radikalenerlaß
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
The level of precision required of domestic legislation - which cannot in any case provide for every eventuality - depends to a considerable degree on the content of the law in question, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see RTBF v. Belgium, no. 50084/06, § 104, ECHR 2011; Rekvényi, cited above, § 34; Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 48, Series A no. 323; and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano, cited above, § 142). - EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74
SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30; Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 40, Series A no. 260-A; Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-III; and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano, cited above, § 141). - EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04
S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09
While it is for the national authorities to make the initial assessment in all these respects, the final evaluation of whether the interference is necessary remains subject to review by the Court for conformity with the requirements of the Convention (see, for example, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 101, ECHR 2008, and Coster v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24876/94, § 104, 18 January 2001). - EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81
LEANDER c. SUÈDE
- EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
- EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88
KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57
LAWLESS c. IRLANDE (N° 3)
- EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75
LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75
DEWEER c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09
CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY
- EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
- EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08
BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
- EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98
MAESTRI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99
PEREZ c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77
VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84
CIULLA v. ITALY
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 30194/09
SHIMOVOLOS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 26307/95
Entscheidung der Großen Kammer über die an sie nach Art. 43 Europäische …
- EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91
QUINN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05
MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04
- EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 72118/01
KHAMIDOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 28945/95
T.P. ET K.M. c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 18.01.2017 - 41576/98
GANCI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'ITALIE
- EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 32190/96
LUORDO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 33804/96
MENNITTO v. ITALY
- EGMR, 21.03.2000 - 34553/97
DULAURANS c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 04.11.2003 - 47244/99
NOVOTKA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 34383/03
GOCHEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 17.12.2014 - 48865/99
MORSINK ET 2 AUTRES CAS CONTRE LES PAYS-BAS
- EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 19675/06
VILLA CONTRE L'ITALIE
- EKMR, 27.05.1991 - 12541/86
CIANCIMINO contre l'ITALIE
- EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96
BAUMANN v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 4509/08
CIOBANU c. ROUMANIE ET ITALIE
- EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 28975/05
KHLYUSTOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 47306/07
NINESCU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11
DENISOV v. UKRAINE
These examples include disciplinary proceedings concerning the right to practise a profession (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, §§ 47 and 48, Series A no. 43, and Philis v. Greece (no. 2), 27 June 1997, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV), disputes involving the right to a healthy environment (see Ta?Ÿkin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 133, ECHR 2004-X), prisoners" detention arrangements (see Ganci v. Italy, no. 41576/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-XI, and Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 103, ECHR 2009), the right of access to investigation documents (see Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, §§ 143-45, 26 July 2012), disputes regarding the non-inclusion of a conviction in a criminal record (see Alexandre v. Portugal, no. 33197/09, §§ 54 and 55, 20 November 2012), proceedings for the application of a non-custodial preventive measure (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 154, ECHR 2017 (extracts)), and the revocation of a civil servant's security clearance within the Ministry of Defence (see Regner, cited above, §§ 113-27). - EGMR, 21.11.2019 - 47287/15
Transitzonen grundsätzlich erlaubt
The difference between deprivation and restriction of liberty is one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 80, 23 February 2017, with the references therein; see also Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, § 36, 11 October 2016). - EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 48151/11
FÉDÉRATION NATIONALE DES ASSOCIATIONS ET SYNDICATS DE SPORTIFS (FNASS) ET AUTRES …
Elle rappelle également, comme le fait le Gouvernement, que des mesures spéciales de surveillance avec assignation à résidence constituent en principe des restrictions à la liberté de circulation examinées sous l'angle de l'article 2 du Protocole no 4 (De Tommaso c. Italie [GC], no 43395/09, §§ 83 et suivants, CEDH 2017 (extraits)).
- EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 43868/18
WA BAILE c. SUISSE
Par conséquent, bien que les États contractants jouissent d'une certaine latitude quant à la manière d'honorer les obligations que leur impose cette disposition, il faut qu'existe au niveau interne un recours permettant à l'autorité nationale compétente de connaître du contenu du grief fondé sur la Convention et d'offrir le redressement approprié (voir, par exemple, Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase c. Roumanie [GC], no 41720/13, § 217, 25 juin 2019, Soering c. Royaume-Uni, 7 juillet 1989, § 120, série A no 161, et De Tommaso c. Italie [GC], no 43395/09, § 179, 23 février 2017). - EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 49933/20
Coronamaßnahmen in Rumänien: Ein Lockdown ist kein Hausarrest
Les principes généraux 36. Les principes bien établis applicables en la matière, en ce qui concerne la distinction entre privation de liberté et restriction à la liberté de circulation, sont présentés dans les affaires Austin et autres c. Royaume-Uni ([GC], nos 39692/09 et 2 autres, § 57 et 59, CEDH 2012), et De Tommaso c. Italie ([GC], no 43395/09, § 80-81, 23 février 2017). - EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 17895/14
EVERS v. GERMANY
Auch wenn die öffentliche Verhandlung einen in Artikel 6 Abs. 1 der Konvention verankerten Grundsatz darstellt, ist die Pflicht eine solche durchzuführen nicht absolut (siehe De Tommaso ./. Italien [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 43395/09, Rdnr. 163, 23. Februar 2017 und Jussila ./. Finnland [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 73053/01, Rdnrn. 41-42, ECHR 2006-XIV). - EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 39611/18
GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (IV)
General principles 60. The Court has held that any measure restricting the right to liberty of movement within the territory of the respondent State must be in accordance with law (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 104, 23 February 2017, and Gartukayev v. Russia, no. 71933/01, § 21, 13 December 2005). - EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 64220/19
Föderation der Aleviten-Gemeinden in Österreich ./. Österreich
There has been a shift in the Court's case-law towards applying the civil limb of Article 6 also to cases which might not initially appear to concern a civil right but which may have direct and significant repercussions on a private right (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 151, 23 February 2017, with further references; see also Denisov, cited above, §§ 51-52, with further references). - EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 38121/20
L.B. v. LITHUANIA
Accordingly, the Court has no reason to doubt that the refusal by the Lithuanian authorities to issue the applicant with an alien's passport constituted an interference with his right to freedom of movement (see, mutatis mutandis, Kerimli v. Azerbaijan, no. 3967/09, § 47, 16 July 2015, and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 104, 23 February 2017, and the cases cited therein). - EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 24159/22
GUÐMUNDUR GUNNARSSON AND MAGNÚS DAVÍÐ NORÐDAHL v. ICELAND
While the Procedural Rules of the Preparatory Credentials Committee were admittedly adopted after the applicants lodged their complaints, they were per se accessible and foreseeable in their application (see, among other authorities, De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, §§ 106-09, 23 February 2017). - EGMR, 11.04.2024 - 18179/17
KARTER v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 42429/16
MEMEDOVA AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA
- EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 34367/14
BELKACEM c. BELGIQUE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 07.09.2023 - C-128/22
NORDIC INFO - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Freizügigkeit - Nationale Maßnahmen …
- EGMR, 10.07.2020 - 310/15
MUGEMANGANGO c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 56397/15
DEDU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 56665/09
KÁROLY NAGY c. HONGRIE
- EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21
WALESA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20
JUSZCZYSZYN v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 40119/21
M.L. v. POLAND
- EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07
BILGEN v. TURKEY
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 23.03.2023 - C-209/22
Rayonna prokuratura Lovech, TO Lukovit (Fouille corporelle) - Vorlage zur …
- EGMR, 01.06.2023 - 19750/13
GROSAM v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 21.11.2019 - 61411/15
Gestrandete Flüchtlingen am Moskauer Flughafen: Gefangen in der Transitzone?
- EGMR, 25.01.2024 - 28535/15
KONOPLIANKO v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 24203/16
PAGERIE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 76521/12
EMINAGAOGLU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 41226/09
Türkei verurteilt: Nicht jeder ist ein Terrorist
- EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 21272/12
BECKER v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 08.02.2024 - 1162/22
AURAY ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 27094/20
NURCAN BAYRAKTAR c. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 08.06.2023 - 46530/09
URGESI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 49072/21
PANJU c. BELGIQUE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 74209/16
WILLEMS ET GORJON c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 36889/18
CAMELIA BOGDAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 12427/22
A.D. v. MALTA
- EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 42875/10
BERLAND c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15
ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)
- EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 50170/14
CZERSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 77686/16
ARNOLD ET MARTHALER c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 24867/13
M.K. v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 29447/17
D c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 44789/07
REXHEPI SH.P.K. v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 07.09.2021 - 21094/11
ILASLAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 69291/12
PELEKI c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 50432/17
HALKIN KURTULUS PARTISI (HKP) v. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 14728/15
DIMITROVA c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 10425/19
P.W. v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 23413/16
J.A. c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 11279/17
OLKHOVIK ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 45431/14
TIMOFEYEV ET POSTUPKIN c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 25.02.2020 - 78108/14
PAIXÃO MOREIRA SÁ FERNANDES c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 32303/13
MIROVNI INSTITUT v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 19258/07
DÖNMEZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 13476/05
OKAN GÜVEN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 49484/22
OBIE DARKO ET MOUVEMENT CITOYEN TOUS MIGRANTS c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 25.05.2023 - 21971/21
KAMAL c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 26564/16
CLASENS c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13
MURSALIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 19120/15
SERAZIN v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 46713/10
BAKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 39731/12
WOLLAND v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 57818/10
TIBET MENTES AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 12.07.2023 - 29259/21
B.Y. c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 15.06.2023 - 31185/18
FANOUNI c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 60785/19
MØRCK JENSEN v. DENMARK
- EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12
GOLUB v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.11.2021 - 37677/16
ABDULLIN c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 15995/07
I.M. RESAN S.R.L. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 26764/12
ROTARU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 57316/10
IMRET v. TURKEY (No. 2)
- EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28766/06
KIPS DOO AND DREKALOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 59040/08
OKTAR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR - 57185/17 (anhängig)
O.H. AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 60104/21
PEREZ c. MONACO
- EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 67414/11
CUPIAL v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.02.2023 - 418/19
SCI BARAKA c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 16.02.2023 - 23/19
HODOR c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 16.02.2023 - 5943/18
CANDELIER c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 24738/19
GASI AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 40234/16
AMIS TELEKOM DOO v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 17863/13
VLASENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 18945/10
VOSKERCHYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 55674/10
ACHILOV AND IVANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 62157/16
CHERECHES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 62319/10
VARANO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 1009/12
STOYAN KRASTEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 999/19
AFTANACHE v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 28.04.2020 - 36077/14
BEVC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 30547/14
CONVERTITO ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 12.11.2019 - 40797/17
SAAR v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 22479/05
AVYIDI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 6970/15
ZHANG v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 44689/16
MAROUGGAS v. GREECE
- EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 50157/06
MANGÎR AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 50488/13
CANNIZZO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 74441/14
BOTNARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 48818/17
CUMHURIYET HALK PARTISI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 39783/15
BORG v. MALTA
- EGMR - 29535/23 (anhängig)
DODON c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 32997/15
BULIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 61019/19
GARRIDO HERRERO v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 40550/16
A.Z. c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 30286/15
E.V. c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6739/11
BOKHONKO v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 40554/04
VEVECKA v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 29405/16
CONSTANTINOVICI v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 44489/15
DOBRILA AND VODISLAV v. ROMANIA
- EGMR - 76967/17 (anhängig)
PERROZZI v. ITALY and 13 other applications
- EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 22781/10
BALACCI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 11551/13
POLTORATSKYY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 46382/13
A.S. ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 33809/16
BADOIU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 80237/13
HARVEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM