Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=14.02.2006&Aktenzeichen=28793/02
Timestamp: 2020-07-11 18:18:44+00:00

Document:
EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 28793/02 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2006,43682
EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 28793/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,43682)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.02.2006 - 28793/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,43682)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. Februar 2006 - 28793/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,43682)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,43682) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S PARTY v. MOLDOVA - [Azeri Translation]
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
[AZE] Preliminary objection rejected Violation of Art. 11 Not necessary to examine under Art. 10 Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
Preliminary objection rejected Violation of Art. 11 Not necessary to examine under Art. 10 Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)
PARTI POPULAIRE DEMOCRATE-CHRETIEN c. MOLDOVA
Exception préliminaire rejetée Violation de l'art. 11 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 10 Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...
EGMR, 22.03.2005 - 28793/02
EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 28793/02
Aux termes du second paragraphe de l'article 11, et comme le prévoient également les articles 8, 9 et 10 de la Convention, la seule forme de nécessité capable de justifier une ingérence dans l'un des droits consacrés par ces articles est celle qui peut se réclamer de la «société démocratique» (Refah Partisi (Parti de la prospérité) et autres c. Turquie [GC], nos 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 et 41344/98, §§ 86-89, CEDH 2003-II, et Parti populaire démocrate-chrétien c. Moldova, no 28793/02, § 63, CEDH 2006-II).
To the extent that these issues are relevant to the assessment of the proportionality of the interference they will be addressed in paragraphs 78-79 below (see Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, § 53, ECHR 2006-II).
However, the Court decides to dispense with ruling on the issue of lawfulness because, in any event, the interference fell short of being necessary in a democratic society, for the reasons set out below (see, for a similar approach, Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, § 53, ECHR 2006-II).
EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 10877/04
By virtue of the wording of the second paragraph of Article 11, the only necessity capable of justifying an interference with the rights enshrined in that Article is one that may claim to spring from "democratic society" (see Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, §§ 62-63, ECHR 2006-, and Djavit An, cited above, § 56).
It considers that in this case the questions of lawfulness and of the existence of a legitimate aim are indissociable from the question whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society" (see, mutatis mutandis, Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, § 53, ECHR 2006-II), and it considers it unnecessary to examine them separately.
It will therefore examine this issue below (see Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, § 53, ECHR 2006-II).
41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, §§ 86-89, ECHR 2003-II, and Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, ECHR 2006-II).
To the extent that the lawfulness issues are relevant to the assessment of the proportionality of the interference they will be addressed in paragraphs 80 to 96 below (see Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, § 53, ECHR 2006-II).
EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 25803/04
Se référant aux arrêts Gorzelik et autres c. Pologne ([GC], no 44158/98, CEDH 2004-I) et Parti populaire démocrate-chrétien c. Moldova (no 28793/02, CEDH 2006-...), le Gouvernement considère comme légitime la mesure entreprise, dont l'objectif serait d'éviter que les partis dissous agissent contre ledit système en soutenant la violence et les activités d'une organisation terroriste, en l'espèce l'ETA (arrêt Refah Partisi (Parti de la prospérité) et autres c. Turquie [GC], nos 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 et 41344/98, CEDH 2003-II).
By virtue of the wording of the second paragraph of Article 11, the only necessity capable of justifying an interference with the rights enshrined in that Article is one that may claim to spring from "democratic society" (see Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, §§ 62-63, ECHR 2006-..., and Djavit An, cited above, § 56).
EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 10661/08
KOMMERSANT MOLDOVY v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 32118/06
ASOCIATIA PENTRU LICHIDAREA CONSECINTELOR PACTULUI MOLOTOV-RIBBENTROP v. MOLDOVA
EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 33238/06
FUSU v. MOLDOVA

References: Art. 10
 Art. 10
 Art. 11
 Art. 11
 Art. 11
 Art. 41
 Art. 11
 Art. 10
 Art. 11
 Art. 10
 l'article 11
 § 63
 § 53
 § 53
 § 56
 § 53
 § 53
 § 53
 § 56