Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=25.03.1983&Aktenzeichen=5947/72
Timestamp: 2019-12-07 11:55:49+00:00
Document Index: 179257772

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', 'art. 6', "l'article 47", 'arrêt ', 'art. 8', 'art. 6', "l'article 13", 'art. 13', 'arrêt ', 'arrêt ', '§ 79', '§ 60', '§ 68', '§ 137', '§ 31', 'arrêt ', "l'article 8", 'art. 8', 'arrêt ', "l'article 10", 'art. 10', 'arrêt ', '§ 80', '§ 115', '§ 82', '§ 118', '§ 113', 'arrêt ', '§ 126', '§ 44', '§ 167', '§ 2', '§ 84', '§ 36', '§ 2']

EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72, 6205/73, 7052/75, 7061/75, 7107/75, 7113/75,... - dejure.org
EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72, 6205/73, 7052/75, 7061/75, 7107/75, 7113/75, 7136/75
https://dejure.org/1983,10846
EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72, 6205/73, 7052/75, 7061/75, 7107/75, 7113/75, 7136/75 (https://dejure.org/1983,10846)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25.03.1983 - 5947/72, 6205/73, 7052/75, 7061/75, 7107/75, 7113/75, 7136/75 (https://dejure.org/1983,10846)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25. März 1983 - 5947/72, 6205/73, 7052/75, 7061/75, 7107/75, 7113/75, 7136/75 (https://dejure.org/1983,10846)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1983,10846) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 13 Just satisfaction reserved (englisch)
SILVER ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
Violation de l'Art. 6-1 Violation de l'Art. 8 Violation de l'Art. 13 Satisfaction équitable réservée (französisch)
EKMR, 05.03.1976 - 5947/72
EGMR, 24.10.1983 - 5947/72
Wird zitiert von ... (301)
La Cour a examiné des moyens analogues du gouvernement du Royaume-Uni dans son arrêt Silver et autres du 25 mars 1983 (série A no 61, p. 31, par. 79); elle ne voit aucune raison de s'écarter en l'occurrence de la décision adoptée alors.
1 (art. 6-1); on ne saurait donc parler d'une "solution", même partielle, "du litige" (voir, mutatis mutandis, l'article 47 par. 2 du règlement de la Cour et l'arrêt Silver et autres précité, série A no 61, pp. 31-32, par. 81).
2 (art. 8-2) (série A no 61, pp. 38-39, par. 99).
1 (art. 6-1) (paragraphes 107 et 113 ci-dessus) dispensent de les considérer sous l'angle de l'article 13 (art. 13): les exigences du second sont moins strictes que celles du premier et absorbées par elles en l'espèce (voir, en dernier lieu, l'arrêt Silver et autres précité, série A no 61,p. 41, par. 110).
Par les motifs énoncés dans son arrêt Silver et autres précité (série A no 61, pp. 42-44, paras. 114-118), la Cour constate qu'il doit bien en être ainsi.
EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06
EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung
La Cour a maintes fois évité d'examiner des affaires in abstracto (Silver et autres c. Royaume-Uni, 25 mars 1983, § 79, série A no 61, Nikolova c. Bulgarie [GC], no 31195/96, § 60, CEDH 1999-II, Nejdet Sahin et Perihan Sahin c. Turquie [GC], no 13279/05, §§ 68-70, 20 octobre 2011, Sabanchiyeva et autres c. Russie, no 38450/05, § 137, CEDH 2013, et Monnat c. Suisse, no 73604/01, §§ 31-32, CEDH 2006-X).
Dans son arrêt Silver et autres du 25 mars 1983 (série A no 61, pp. 32-33, par. 85), la Cour a jugé qu'au moins pour les entraves à la correspondance de détenus, les mots "prévue par la loi/in accordance with the law", figurant au paragraphe 2 de l'article 8 (art. 8-2), doivent s'interpréter à la lumière des principes généraux qui, d'après l'arrêt Sunday Times du 26 avril 1979 (série A no 30), valent pour les termes comparables, "prévues par la loi/prescribed by law", dont se sert le paragraphe 2 de l'article 10 (art. 10-2).
La Cour y a jugé qu" "une loi conférant un pouvoir d'appréciation doit en fixer la portée", bien que le détail des normes et procédures à observer n'ait pas besoin de figurer dans la législation elle-même (série A no 61, pp. 33-34, par. 88-89).
Nous nous référons en particulier aux arrêts Klass et autres (série A no 28, par. 61 et s.), Sporrong et Lönnroth (série A no 52, par. 88), Silver et autres (série A no 61, par. 109 et s.) ainsi qu'au très récent arrêt Campbell et Fell (série A no 80, par. 124 et s.), où elle a jeté les bases d'une interprétation cohérente de cette disposition.
In certain cases a violation cannot be made good through the mere payment of compensation (see, for example, Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, § 80, 11 June 2009 in connection with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1) and the inability to render a binding decision granting redress may also raise issues (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 115, Series A no. 61; Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 82, Series A no. 116; and Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v. Sweden, no. 62332/00, § 118, ECHR 2006-VII).
Accordingly, the Court does not consider that the prison authorities would have a sufficiently independent standpoint to satisfy the requirements of Article 13 (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 113, Series A no. 61): in deciding on a complaint concerning conditions of detention for which they are responsible, they would in reality be judges in their own cause.
52- Zur Wechselwirkung zwischen Verwaltungsanweisungen, die das Verwaltungsermessen eingrenzen, und den Anforderungen an die "Qualität des Gesetzes", wenn gerade sie der Ungenauigkeit jenes Gesetzes entgegenwirken, auf dem sie beruhen, vgl. z. B. EGMR, Urteil Silver/Vereinigtes Königreich vom 25. März 1983, Nr. 5947/72, Nr. 88. Die Verwaltungsvorschrift von 2009 ist öffentlich zugänglich.
Même si les détenus se rangent dans une catégorie particulière d'ayants droit, ils n'en auraient pas moins des droits que les autorités devraient protéger (le requérant invoque ici l'arrêt Silver et autres c. Royaume-Uni du 25 mars 1983, série A no 61).
EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88
It has also been recognised that some measure of control over prisoners" correspondence is called for and is not of itself incompatible with the Convention, regard being paid to the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment (see the Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 38, para. 98).
In this respect the Court has consistently recognised a certain but not unlimited margin of appreciation to the States Parties in the imposition of the restrictions (see, inter alia, the Silver and Others judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, pp. 37-38, para. 97) under the supervision of this Court as to their compatibility with the Convention.
Indeed, it seems quite clear from its judgment in the case of Silver and Others (Series A no. 61, in particular p. 39, para. 101) that the Court there considered that, making due allowance for their margin of appreciation, the authorities were entitled as a justifiable measure of control over prisoners" correspondence (and, by inference, irrespective of the extent to which they might have had prior cause for suspicion of abuse) to open and read - and in the circumstances of that case even to stop - a letter from a prisoner to his solicitor which did not relate to contemplated or pending proceedings.
For example, prisoners may not be ill-treated, subjected to inhuman or degrading punishment or conditions contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI, and Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II); they continue to enjoy the right to respect for family life (Ploski v. Poland, no. 26761/95, 12 November 2002, and X v. the United Kingdom, no. 9054/80, Commission decision of 8 October 1982, DR 30, p. 113); the right to freedom of expression (Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 126-45, ECHR 2003-XII, and T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission's report of 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84); the right to practise their religion (Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, §§ 167-71, ECHR 2003-V); the right of effective access to a lawyer or to a court for the purposes of Article 6 (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, and Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18); the right to respect for correspondence (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61); and the right to marry (Hamer v. the United Kingdom, no. 7114/75, Commission's report of 13 December 1979, DR 24, p. 5, and Draper v. the United Kingdom, no. 8186/78, Commission's report of 10 July 1980, DR 24, p. 72).
EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
In particular, if it is not to contravene Article 8 § 2, such interference must be "in accordance with the law", pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society in order to achieve that aim (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32 § 84, and Petra v. Romania, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, p. 2853, § 36).
From all the above it follows that the opening of the letters (a) was in accordance with the national law, that is, the Penitentiary Code, Article 51 § 2 [see paragraph 62 of the Court's judgment], (b) was effected for "the prevention of disorder or crime" (that is, smuggling drugs into prison), and (c) was "necessary in a democratic society" in the present case, contrary to the situation in Campbell and other older cases (see, for example, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61; Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1998, Series A no. 131; and McCallum v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 183).
EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83
HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE
EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95
EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00
LAVENTS c. LETTONIE
EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 38321/97
EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90
FISCHER c. AUTRICHE
EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05
KENNEDY c. ROYAUME-UNI
SILVER ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI (ARTICLE 50)
EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 4158/05
EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95
REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE
EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84
ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)
EGMR, 22.04.2014 - 43750/06
NUSRET KAYA v. TURKEY
EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95
NIEDBALA v. POLAND
EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 24117/08
BERNH LARSEN HOLDING AS AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
EGMR, 26.06.1992 - 12747/87
DROZD ET JANOUSEK c. FRANCE ET ESPAGNE
EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84
PFEIFER ET PLANKL c. AUTRICHE
EKMR, 20.01.1987 - 11603/85
COUNCIL OF CIVIL SERVICE UNIONS et autres c. ROYAUME-UNI
EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 152/04
YEFIMENKO v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 20841/02
DROZDOWSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87
CHORHERR v. AUSTRIA
EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 6615/03
KARACAY c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 7472/14
D.L. v. BULGARIA
EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07
BELOUSOV v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 6194/11
VALCHEVA AND ABRASHEV v. BULGARIA
EGMR, 25.02.1997 - 22107/93
EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 28403/05
VINTMAN v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04
BORIS POPOV v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 64119/00
KAYASU c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 51895/99
KWIEK v. POLAND
EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 92/03
PISK-PISKOWSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 22.07.2003 - 24209/94
Y.F. c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 24.05.2018 - 28798/13
EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 65187/10
BALAKCHIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 58447/00
ZAVOLOKA c. LETTONIE
EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15197/02
PETROV v. BULGARIA
EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 16870/11
KAHADAWA ARACHCHIGE AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS
EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 14946/08
MESUT YURTSEVER ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 50131/08
EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 28825/02
BUGLOV v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 46931/12
APAP BOLOGNA v. MALTA
EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56720/09
HEINO v. FINLAND
EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 1291/03
SERGEY VOLOSYUK v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 73792/01
SULTAN ONER ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 18.04.2006 - 44362/04
EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 27057/06
GORLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 2913/06
MUNJAZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3390/05
MIROSLAW ZIELINSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 42973/05
BISIR AND TULUS v. MOLDOVA
EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 19348/04
Sorvisto ./. Finnland
EGMR, 27.01.2005 - 59450/00
RAMIREZ SANCHEZ c. FRANCE
EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 31524/96
BELVEDERE ALBERGHIERA S.R.L. c. ITALIE
EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 60975/08
SIEMASZKO ET OLSZY?ƒSKI c. POLOGNE
EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 24938/06
VITKOVSKIY v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 23623/07
JARKIEWICZ v. POLAND
EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 44025/08
FRIEDENSBERG v. POLAND
EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 30209/04
PONUSHKOV v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 10816/02
EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 60176/00
EBRU ET TAYFUN ENGIN COLAK c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 59304/00
JANKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA
EGMR, 14.10.2004 - 40750/98
OSPINA VARGAS c. ITALIE
EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 52903/99
DACTYLIDI c. GRECE
EGMR, 20.10.1997 - 19736/92
RADIO ABC c. AUTRICHE
EKMR, 06.04.1995 - 25522/94
RAI, ALLMOND ET "NEGOTIATE NOW" c. ROYAUME-UNI
EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 75225/13
B. TAGLIAFERRO & SONS LIMITED AND COLEIRO BROTHERS LIMITED v. MALTA
EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 5187/07
MOROZ v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 27939/08
VALYRAKIS c. GRECE
EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56716/09
HARJU v. FINLAND
EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 15672/08
MEHMET NURI OZEN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 20808/02
SHALIMOV v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 72976/01
JASINSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 40516/98
FAHRIYE CALISKAN c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 10.04.2007 - 46794/99
PANARISI c. ITALIE
EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 62257/15
MIFSUD v. MALTA
EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 3356/15
EDWARD ZAMMIT MAEMPEL AND CYNTHIA ZAMMIT MAEMPEL v. MALTA
EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 28691/05
SARIGÜL c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 34044/08
MELA v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 10381/04
OWSIK v. POLAND
EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 43672/98
ERTAS AYDIN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 38816/97
G.K. v. POLAND
EGMR, 21.10.1996 - 15943/90
DOMENICHINI v. ITALY
EKMR, 08.05.1989 - 10802/84
P. ET P. v. AUSTRIA
EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 1935/07
ZATYNAYKO v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 47768/09
ÇETIN v. TURKEY
EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 42921/09
FELDMAN v. UKRAINE (NO. 2)
EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 20192/04
KARAN c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 42785/06
PASTERNAK v. POLAND
EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 36936/05
EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 32524/05
P. S. gegen Deutschland
EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 43837/06
MISIAK v. POLAND
EGMR, 23.03.2006 - 23560/02
K.-D. J. gegen Deutschland
EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 23032/02
LUKENDA v. SLOVENIA
EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57884/00
EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 60411/00
ETANJI c. FRANCE
EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 39665/98
EGMR, 24.08.1998 - 23618/94
LAMBERT c. FRANCE
EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 27868/95
SALONEN v. FINLAND
EGMR, 15.11.1996 - 15211/89
EKMR, 27.06.1994 - 21482/93
CHRISTIE c. ROYAUME-UNI
EKMR, 09.12.1988 - 13214/87
M.L. c. ROYAUME-UNI
EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 56710/13
LABACA LARREA ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
EGMR, 30.06.2016 - 33589/05
SHANSKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 28819/12
CAPRIOTTI c. ITALIE
EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 33252/08
VENTOURIS ET AUTRES c. GRECE
EGMR, 11.05.2010 - 33798/05
RUZA v. LATVIA
EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 37619/05
MEHMET NURI ÖZEN c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 19.11.2009 - 13693/05
GLINOV v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 21.02.2008 - 11325/06
KANELLOPOULOS c. GRECE
EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 44521/04
KOLODZINSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 12.06.2007 - 28836/04
ABRAMCZYK c. POLOGNE
EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 63767/00
PUZINAS v. LITHUANIA (No. 2)
EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 4902/02
CIAPAS v. LITHUANIA
EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 20868/02
METIN TURAN c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 25.09.2006 - 17060/02
COBAN c. ESPAGNE
EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 75833/01
SCHEMKAMPER c. FRANCE
EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 43974/98
BULGA ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 45050/98
AKAT c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00
GERGELY v. ROMANIA
EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 57752/00
MATHERON c. FRANCE
EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 45508/99
H.L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 37471/97
WILLIAM FAULKNER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 33129/96
OLIVIEIRA c. PAYS-BAS
EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 39360/98
S.B.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EKMR, 08.11.1989 - 13590/88
CAMPBELL c. ROYAUME-UNI
EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 48852/17
HANSEN v. NORWAY
EGMR, 16.03.2017 - 8746/05
KURENEVA v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 30.06.2016 - 15327/05
KHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 22373/07
TUNÇ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 12090/10
SANAK c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 17233/08
MCCABE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 10734/05
MACKAY AND BBC SCOTLAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 34907/05
HINCZEWSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 12772/06
KOTOWSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 26744/02
KISIELEWSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 60123/00
REYHAN c. TURQUIE (N° 2)
EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 31038/06
ANDRYSIAK v. POLAND
EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 39519/05
ZBOROWSKI v. POLAND (N° 3)
EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 20138/03
BOBEL v. POLAND
EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 45133/06
ZBOROWSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 38007/02
WARSINSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 24320/03
GRAVIANO (II) c. ITALIE
EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 62323/00
NAJDECKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 14450/02
MAKSYM v. POLAND
EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 63062/00
SCHNEITER c. SUISSE
EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 68138/01
ZAZANIS ET AUTRES c. GRECE
EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 66725/01
FOTOPOULOU c. GRECE
EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 70204/01
FREROT contre la FRANCE
EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 40998/98
THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN SHIPPING LINES v. TURKEY
EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 28212/95
EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 42297/98
McMULLEN v. IRELAND
EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 37331/97
LANDVREUGD v. THE NETHERLANDS
EGMR, 18.09.2001 - 37471/97
FAULKNER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 20.03.2001 - 36256/97
THOMPSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 31543/96
RINZIVILLO c. ITALIE
EGMR, 05.12.2000 - 35574/97
EKMR, 22.10.1998 - 36528/97
KARA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EKMR, 21.10.1998 - 28202/95
MIDDELBURG, VAN DER ZEE AND HET PAROOL B.B. v. THE NETHERLANDS
EGMR, 23.09.1998 - 27273/95
EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 30128/96
F.S. v. GERMANY
EKMR, 07.03.1996 - 25987/94
HINS AND HUGENHOLTZ v. THE NETHERLANDS
EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 7926/12
TELLI c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 15658/09
STOLYAROVA v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 1955/14
CUSACK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 1286/09
OGRODNICZUK c. POLOGNE
EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 14196/05
MEHMET NURI OZEN c. TURQUIE (NO. 2)
EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 18534/05
YILMAZ, BUDAK et SANAK c. TURQUIE
EGMR, 07.09.2010 - 47646/06
FERNANDEZ SAAVEDRA ET REYES CORTES c. ESPAGNE
EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 13637/03
BARTOSINSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 24803/05
OKTAY c. TURQUIE (I)
EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 39469/02
GUZIUK v. POLAND
EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 47811/99
VARGA v. SLOVAKIA
EGMR, 02.10.2003 - 57248/00
CHISHTI v. PORTUGAL
EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 53401/99
KONTI-ARVANITI c. GRECE
EGMR, 21.03.2000 - 41175/98
ROSAN contre la BELGIQUE
EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 34772/97
MAMOU AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
EGMR, 17.11.1998 - 34328/96
PEREE v. THE NETHERLANDS
EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 26739/95
HELIN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
EKMR, 15.01.1997 - 23198/94
BECK v. HUNGARY
EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 27033/95
KONKAMA ET AUTRES c. SUEDE
EKMR, 27.06.1996 - 26335/95
VERENIGING RADIO 100, DE RAAIJ, FOLLON, STRAUS AND SWART v. THE NETHERLANDS
EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 25523/94
MURDOCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 27533/95
MARTIN c. ROYAUME-UNI
EKMR, 09.10.1991 - 12976/87
G. v. AUSTRIA
EKMR, 15.12.1988 - 10802/84
P. AND P. v. AUSTRIA
EKMR, 08.03.1988 - 11450/85
WALLIN c. SUEDE
EKMR, 07.07.1987 - 12553/86
N.E. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EKMR, 07.07.1986 - 11731/85
H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 46551/12
TORMA v. HUNGARY
EGMR, 11.05.2010 - 18139/07
ATILLA v. TURKEY
EKMR, 08.09.1993 - 17540/90
NEUMAYR v. AUSTRIA
EKMR, 19.01.1989 - 13040/87
ARZT v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
EKMR, 19.01.1989 - 14176/88
RYDER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EKMR, 13.05.1987 - 12523/86
GRIBLER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM