Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=10.11.2004&Aktenzeichen=46117%2F99
Timestamp: 2018-09-21 04:50:19+00:00
Document Index: 293863411

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 8', 'art. 6', 'art. 2', '§ 128', '§ 119', "l'article 8", 'arrêt ', '§ 83', '§ 128', '§ 60', '§ 119', '§ 103', '§ 1', '§ 127', '§ 70', "l'article 6", 'arrêt ', '§ 103', '§ 1', '§ 127', '§ 70', '§ 113', '§ 144', '§ 36', '§ 40', '§ 25', '§ 48', '§ 33', '§ 28', '§ 68', '§ 31', '§ 65', '§ 50', '§ 35', '§ 135', '§ 72', '§ 25', '§ 174', '§ 1', '§ 43', '§ 130', '§ 20']

EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 46117/99 - dejure.org
EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 46117/99
TASKIN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
Art. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 36, Art. 36 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'art. 8 Violation de l'art. 6-1 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 2 et 13 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire (französisch)
Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 2 and 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)
EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 46117/99
96 - Vgl. Entscheidungen des EGMR vom 8. Juli 2003, Hatton u. a./Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2003:0708JUD00360229710, § 128), und vom 10. November 2004, Taskin u. a./Türkei (CE:ECHR:2004:1110JUD004611799, § 119).
EGMR, 05.06.2007 - 17381/02
LEMKE c. TURQUIE
Quant à la qualité de victime de la requérante, la Cour rappelle avoir dit dans l'affaire Taskin et autres c. Turquie (no 46117/99, CEDH 2004-X), que lorsque les effets dangereux d'une activité minière ont été déterminés dans le cadre d'une procédure d'évaluation de l'impact sur l'environnement, de manière à établir un lien suffisamment étroit avec la vie privée et familiale, l'article 8 s'applique au cas d'espèce.
Faute d'élément susceptible d'étayer la thèse de l'intéressée, il n'incombe pas à la Cour de spéculer en la matière (voir en ce sens, (Taskin et autres c. Turquie (déc.), no 46117/99, 29 janvier 2004).
Les requérants invoquent en ce sens les affaires Giacomelli c. Italie (arrêt du 2 novembre 2006, § 83), Hatton et autres c. Royaume Uni ([GC], no 36022/97, § 128, ECHR 2003-VIII), Guerra et autres précité (§ 60) et Taskin et autres c. Turquie (no 46117/99, § 119, CEDH 2004-X).
EGMR - 26660/05
NOYANALPAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Were the alleged nuisances in the present case sufficient to trigger the authorities" positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention? If so, has there been a violation of that Article? In particular, have the State authorities discharged their obligation to protect the applicants" right to respect for their private and family lives as well as their homes against the alleged harm caused by the private hospital (see, mutatis mutandis, López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C; Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, §§ 103-126, ECHR 2004-X; and Mileva and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43449/02 and 21475/04, 25 November 2010)?.
Have the domestic courts" judgments been executed? If not, has their non-execution constituted a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, §§ 127-138, ECHR 2004-X, and Okyay and Others v. Turkey, no. 36220/97, §§ 70-75, ECHR 2005-VII?).
La Cour réaffirme que l'article 6 s'applique à des questions qui ne sont pas strictement d'ordre économique comme, par exemple, le droit à un environnement sain (TaskÄ±n et autres c. Turquie, no 46117/99, CEDH 2004-X), le droit à la liberté (Laidin c. France (no 2), no 39282/98, 7 janvier 2003), le droit à une bonne réputation (Helmers c. Suède, arrêt du 29 octobre 1991, série A no 212-A) et le droit d'accès à des documents administratifs (Loiseau c. France (déc.), no 46809/99, CEDH 2003-XII).
EGMR - 44837/07
ÇIÇEK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, have the State authorities discharged their obligation to protect the applicants" right to respect for their private and family lives as well as their homes against the alleged harm caused by the lime plant (see Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, §§ 103-126, ECHR 2004-X)?.
Has the Bursa Administrative Court's judgment of 22 January 2007 been executed? If not, has its non-execution constituted a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, §§ 127-138, ECHR 2004-X, and Okyay and Others v. Turkey, no. 36220/97, §§ 70-75, ECHR 2005-VII?).
EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 24202/10
Maempel ./. Malta
Specifically, Article 8 of the Convention applies to severe environmental pollution which may affect individuals" well-being and prevent them from enjoying their homes in such a way as to affect their private and family life adversely, even without seriously endangering their health (see, among others, TaskÄ±n and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 113, ECHR 2004-X).
The Court considers that the violation of Article 8 caused each of the applicants non-pecuniary damage which cannot, however, be precisely calculated (see, mutatis mutandis, TaskÄ±n and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 144, ECHR 2004-X).
By way of example, such cases have related to failure to: pay a debt or compensation (Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 36-38, ECHR 2002-III; Timofeyev v. Russia, no. 58263/00, §§ 40-43, 23 October 2003; Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, §§ 25-26, 27 May 2004; and Simaldone v. Italy, no. 22644/03, §§ 48-56, 31 March 2009); comply with the annulment of an expropriation order (Katsaros v. Greece, no. 51473/99, §§ 33-35, 6 June 2002); restore property or pay compensation (Jasiuniene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, §§ 28-32, 6 March 2003, and Sabin Popescu v. Romania, no. 48102/99, §§ 68-76, 2 March 2004); demolish buildings (Kyrtatos v. Greece, no. 41666/98, §§ 31-32, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts), and Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, §§ 65-73, 17 June 2003); evict persons from a building (Prodan v. Moldova, no. 49806/99, §§ 50-56, ECHR 2004-III (extracts)); grant access to public documents (Kenedi v. Hungary, no. 31475/05, §§ 35-39, 26 May 2009); bring industrial and other activities to an end (Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, §§ 135-138, ECHR 2004-X, and Okyay and Others v. Turkey, no. 36220/97, §§ 72-74, ECHR 2005-VII); employ a person (Castren-Niniou v. Greece, no. 43837/02, §§ 25-28, 9 June 2005); and hand over adopted children to their parents (Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, §§ 174-189, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)).
EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 43245/07
JOOS v. SWITZERLAND
The Court reiterates that, for Article 6 § 1 in its "civil" limb to be applicable, there must be a dispute over a "civil right" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see, among many other examples, Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-IV; TaskÄ±n and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 130, ECHR 2004-X and L'association des amis de Saint-Raphaël et de Fréjus v. France (dec.), no. 45053/98, § 20, 29 February 2000).
EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 31339/04
DARKOWSKA AND DARKOWSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 34327/06
GENÇ AND DEMIRGAN v. TURKEY
EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 22743/07
OTGON v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 46771/99
OCKAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE