Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/46572.99-en-20040928/
Timestamp: 2018-03-25 03:28:49
Document Index: 354020671

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 10', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 13', '§ 35', '§ 64', '§ 52', '§ 50', '§ 37', '§ 59', '§ 55', '§ 64', '§ 115', '§ 64', '§ 44', '§ 62', '§ 39', '§ 50', '§ 123', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'art. 8', 'art. 13', 'art. 10', 'art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 8']

SABOU AND PIRCALAB v. ROMANIA / ECHR
SABOU AND PIRCALAB v. ROMANIA View
AppNr 46572/99
Articles 10; 13; 41; 8
Violated / NonViolated 81013
Citations 35-36-16-3-d88-11013P1-1P1-3P4-236-16-2810P1-1P4-2
Costs and expenses (national proceedings) - claim dismissed
Application Number 46572/99
Represented by MACOVEI Monica
Date of Introduction 25/09/1998
Date of Judgment 28/09/2004
Conclusion Violation of Art. 10 ; Violation of Art. 8 ; Violation of Art. 13 ; Pecuniary damage - financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses (national proceedings) - claim dismissed ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
Articles 8 ; 13 ; 10 ; 41
Strasbourg Case Law Barfod v. Denmark, judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149, § 35 ;Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway, [GC], no. 21980/93, § 64, ECHR 1999-III ;Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52 ;Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-VI ;De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, arrêt du 24 February 1997, Reports 1997-I, pp. 233-234, § 37 ;Gnahore v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX ;Iatridis v. Greece [GC] (just satisfaction), no. 31107/96, § 55, ECHR 2000-XI ;Johansen v. Norway, judgment of 7 August 1996, Reports 1996-III, §§ 64, 78 ;Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, § 115 ;Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A. no. 28, § 64 ;Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 44, ECHR 2002-II ;Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII ;Pantea v. Romania (dec.), no. 33343/96, 6 March 2001 ;Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, §§ 39, 47, ECHR 2003-V ;Sunday Times v. Royaume Uni (no. 2), judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 217, p. 29, § 50 ;Zdanoka v. Latvia, no. 58278/00, § 123, judgment of 17 June 2004;
Keywords "(Art. 10-1) FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION" "(Art. 10-2) INTERFERENCE" "(Art. 10-2) NECESSARY IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY" "(Art. 10-2) PROTECTION OF THE REPUTATION OF OTHERS" "(Art. 13) EFFECTIVE REMEDY" "(Art. 8-1) RESPECT FOR FAMILY LIFE" "(Art. 8-2) INTERFERENCE"
SABOU et PIRCALAB contre la ROUMANIE
10, 6-3-d, 6-1, 10 Court (Second Section) Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction)
13 (art. 8-1) respect for private life
13 (art. 13) effective remedy
10 (p1-3) vote
8 (art. 10-1) freedom of expression
7 (art. 8-1) respect for correspondence
4 (p1-3) stand for election
4 (p4-2) freedom of movement-{general}
3 (p4-2-1) freedom of movement
16 29-3
11 P1-3
9 P4-2
13 Violation of Art. 8
11 Violation of P1-3
8 Violation of Art. 10
5 Violation of Art. 8 (Respect for private life)
CORNELIA POPA v. ROMANIA
MARCU v. ROMANIA
3, 13, 8 Court (Third Section) Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction)
BACANU AND SC "R" SA v. ROMANIA
6-1, 6-3-d, 10 Court (Third Section) Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction)