Avocatura - profesia de avocat

Ora este UTC + 2




Scrie un subiect nou Răspunde la subiect  [ 5 mesaje/3409 afisari ] 
Autor Mesaj
 Subiectul mesajului: Jurisprudenta CEDO recenta
MesajScris: 26 Ian 2008, 13:46 
Membru de baza
Membru de baza

Membru din: 15 Oct 2004, 13:00
Mesaje: 3387
Localitate: Deva
Pentru cei interesati de jurisprudenta CEDO pe anul 2008, va recomand:


http://soniacososchi.blogspot.com/


Raportează acest mesaj
Sus
 Profil  
Răspuns cu citat  
 Subiectul mesajului:
MesajScris: 26 Ian 2008, 19:49 
Membru de baza
Membru de baza

Membru din: 26 Aug 2006, 13:00
Mesaje: 1453
Pro primo, iti multumesc, apoi, tin neaparat sa iti spun, ca ma bucur. :floare:

_________________
Depinde


Raportează acest mesaj
Sus
 Profil  
Răspuns cu citat  
 Subiectul mesajului:
MesajScris: 15 Feb 2008, 19:20 
Membru senior
Membru senior

Membru din: 09 Apr 2006, 13:00
Mesaje: 607
Thursday 8 March 2008

Chamber

Hearing on the admissibility and merits

9 a.m. Thiermann and Others v. Norway (no. 18712/03)

The applicants – 154 Norwegian nationals, four Swedish nationals and one German national – all have a Norwegian mother and a German father and were born during the Second World War. A number of them were registered as children of “Lebensborn”, a Nazi scheme, introduced by Heinrich Himmler in 1935, to create children who were deemed racially and genetically pure.

Between late 1940 and 8 May 1945 between 10,000 and 12,000 children were born in Norway with a Norwegian mother and a German father. They were referred to as “war children” (krigsbarn).

Towards the end of the war and thereafter, various public officials, notably clergymen and doctors, publicly denounced the war children, claiming that they were mentally and genetically defective and potential Nazi sympathisers.

Many mothers of war children were marginalised, had great difficulties obtaining employment and often had their children adopted or placed in foster homes or in institutions. Many war children were deprived of their original names and identity, subjected to discrimination, harassment and ill-treatment and left with psychological problems and registered disabled at an early age. Some were placed in psychiatric institutions without adequate prior expert assessment and several were refused baptism certificates.

In his New Year speech to the Norwegian people on 1 January 2000 the Prime Minister, Kjell Magne Bondevik, apologised for the discrimination and injustice to which many war children had been subjected.

As war children, the applicants claimed to have been subjected to ill-treatment, including:

· Werner Hermann Thiermann (born in 1941) was locked up in a scorching-hot pig sty with another war child for a day because they “stank”. Although almost unconscious on being released, they were then scrubbed with a piassava brush, water and ammoniac. He was harassed with impunity and, aged nine, with his teacher’s blessing, was raped by older boys at school.

· Harriet von Nickel (born 1942) was regularly locked up, and sometimes attached with a dog chain, to wait for her foster father to come home and hit her. Aged nine or ten she had a swastika marked on her forehead with a nail.

· Anne-Marie Grübe (born 1944) was regularly beaten by her grandmother and her aunts and frequently imprisoned in her home.

· Gerd Synnøve Andersen (born 1944) was washed with scalding hot water in her children’s home. During her sixth school year a teacher sexually abused her in front of the whole class. When she married, the priest recommended that she be sterilised.

· Karl Otto Zinken, (born in 1941) was placed in a special school for mentally retarded children where he was raped by two men.

· Tove Laila Strand (born in 1941) was burnt by her mother with an iron and sexually abused by her stepfather aged six to 15.

· Paul Hansen, (born in April 1942) was placed in psychiatric institutions until 1965 without his mental health being assessed.

On 10 December 1999 these seven applicants brought unsuccessful proceedings before Oslo City Court, claiming that, as war children, they had been the victims of violations of Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 16 November 2001 the court found that the State could not be held liable for any actions or omissions during the period prior to the entry into force of the Convention in Norway in September 1953.

The other applicants also brought proceedings which were stayed pending a legally enforceable decision in the case brought by the first seven applicants.

By a judgment of 21 June 2002 the High Court unanimously upheld the City Court’s judgment.

The applicants complain about the treatment they endured as war children, as well as the authorities’ failure to take any remedial measures subsequently. They claim the violations are continuing in the sense that they are still reminded in negative terms of their origin and value. They rely on Articles 3, 8 and 14.

Wednesday 14 March 2007

Grand Chamber

9 a.m. E.B. v. France (no. 43546/02)

The application concerns the refusal by the French authorities to grant the applicant’s request to adopt a child, allegedly on account of her sexual orientation.

The applicant, E.B., is a French national aged 45. She is a nursery school teacher and has been living with another woman, R., who is a psychologist, since 1990.

In February 1998 the applicant applied to the Jura Social Services Department for authorisation to adopt a child. During the adoption procedure she did not hide her homosexuality or her stable relationship with R.

On the basis of the reports drawn up by a social worker and a psychologist, the commission responsible for examining applications for authorisation to adopt gave a decision in November 1998 rejecting the application. This decision was confirmed by the president of the council for the département of the Jura in March 1999. The reasons given for both decisions were the lack of “identificational points of reference” due to the absence of a paternal image or reference and the ambiguous nature of the applicant’s partner’s commitment to the adoption plan.

The applicant lodged an application with Besançon Administrative Court, which set both decisions aside on 24 February 2000. The département of the Jura appealed against the judgment. Nancy Administrative Court of Appeal set aside the Administrative Court’s judgment on 21 December 2000. It held that the refusal to grant the applicant authorisation had not been based on her choice of lifestyle and had not therefore given rise to a breach of Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

The applicant appealed on points of law, arguing in particular that her application to adopt had been rejected on account of her sexual orientation. In a judgment of 5 June 2002, the Conseil d’Etat dismissed E.B.’s appeal on the ground, among other things, that the Administrative Court of Appeal had not based its decision on a position of principle regarding the applicant’s sexual orientation, but had had regard to the needs and interests of an adopted child.

The applicant alleges that she was refused authorisation to adopt on account of her sexual orientation and that she was discriminated against on the ground of her homosexuality. She relies on Articles 8 and 14.

On 19 September 2006 the Chamber to which the case had originally been assigned relinquished its jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber under Article 302 of the Convention.

Wednesday 28 March 2007

Grand Chamber

9 a.m. Ramanauskas v. Lithuania (no. 74420/01)

The applicant, Kęstas Ramanauskas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Kaišiadorys (Lithuania). He worked as a prosecutor in the Kaišiadorys region.

Mr Ramanauskas submitted that in late 1998 and early 1999 he had been approached by AZ, a person previously unknown to him, through VS, a private acquaintance. AZ – who was, in fact, an officer of a special anti-corruption police unit of the Ministry of Interior (STT) – offered the applicant a bribe of USD 3,000 in return for a promise to obtain the acquittal of a third person. The applicant having initially refused, AZ thereafter reiterated the offer a number of times before the applicant agreed.

The Government submitted that VS and AZ had approached the applicant and negotiated the conditions for the bribe on their own initiative, before the authorities were informed.

On an unspecified date AZ informed the STT that the applicant had agreed to accept a bribe and, on 27 January 1999, the Deputy Prosecutor General authorised VS and AZ to simulate criminal acts of bribery.

On 28 January 1999 the applicant accepted 1,500 US dollars (USD) from AZ. On 11 February 1999 AZ paid the applicant a further USD 1,000.

The same day, the Prosecutor General brought a criminal case against the applicant for accepting a bribe, under the then Article 282 of the Criminal Code.

On 29 August 2000 the applicant was convicted of accepting a bribe of USD 2,500 from AZ and sentenced to 19 months and six days’ imprisonment. VS was not examined during the trial.

The judgment was upheld on appeal and the applicant’s cassation appeal was unsuccessful.

On 31 January 2002 the applicant was released on licence.

The applicant complains that he was incited to commit an offence by the State authorities and that, as a result, he was unfairly convicted of bribery. He further alleges that the principle of equality of arms and his defence rights were violated in that one of the two undercover agents in the case was not examined during the trial by the courts or the parties. He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).

On 19 September 2006 the Chamber to which the case had originally been assigned relinquished its jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber under Article 303 of the Convention.

***

_________________
Who wants to live forever...


Raportează acest mesaj
Sus
 Profil  
Răspuns cu citat  
 Subiectul mesajului:
MesajScris: 15 Feb 2008, 19:29 
Membru senior
Membru senior

Membru din: 09 Apr 2006, 13:00
Mesaje: 607
Arsenovici v. Romania (no. 77210/01)

Tarik v. Romania (no. 75849/01)

The applicants are a Romanian national and a German national. Zoe Delia Arsenovici was born in 1918 and lives in Bucharest. Speranţa Tarik was born in 1944 and lives in Remscheid (Germany).

The Romanian courts allowed claims lodged by Mrs Tarik and Mrs Arsenovici in 1994 and 1997 respectively for the recovery of real property in Bucharest. Subsequent applications for eviction orders against the tenants were refused on the ground that they had failed to comply with the formalities laid down in the applicable legislation.

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained that as a result of the application of the relevant statutory provisions they had been unable for a prolonged period to dispose of a block of flats and to receive rent for them. In the Tarik case the applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), that the proceedings relating to the eviction proceedings she had brought against the occupiers of her flat had not been fair.

The Court considered that the restrictions on the applicants’ use of their property over a number of years had failed to strike a fair balance between protection of the individual’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and the requirements of the general interest. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the Tarik case it held that it was not necessary to examine the merits of the complaint under Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mrs Tarik EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage. As Mrs Arsenovici had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction, the Court decided to make no sum award. (The judgments are available only in French.)

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)

Beian v. Romania (No. 2) (no. 4113/03)

The applicants, Aurel Beian and Elena Beian, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1932 and 1942 respectively and live in Sâncraiu de Mureş (Romania).

They complained in particular of an infringement of their right of access to a court, on account of the Romanian courts’ decision to declare an action they had brought to recover a sum of money void for failure to pay EUR 330 in stamp duty. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

The Court considered that the amount the applicants had been required to pay to bring their action had been manifestly very high in relation to their practical situation since it came to more than twice their entire monthly income, which was lower than the net average salary in Romania at the material time. The Court further noted that the applicants had not had the possibility of being granted an exemption from stamp duty on account of their insufficient means and observed that it had previously found the Romanian national system to be unsatisfactory in that respect. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, held that it was not necessary to rule on the merits of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicants EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Violation of Article 5 § 1

Konolos v. Romania (no. 26600/02)

The applicant, Gheorghe Konolos, is a Romanian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Liège (Belgium).

While working as a company administrator the applicant was remanded in custody in January 2000 on suspicion of deception, tax evasion, forgery and making use of forgeries. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), he complained that his pre-trial detention between April and August 2002 had been unlawful.

The Court considered that during the period in question the applicant’s detention had not been based on any valid domestic decision or any other “lawful” basis for the purposes of Article 5 § 1. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of that Article and awarded Mr Konolos EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)

Violation of Article 13


The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Brătulescu v. Romania (no. 6206/03)

In this case the Court found the above violations on account of the authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour in good time.

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Buttu and Bobulescu v. Romania (I) (no. 20517/02)

Buttu and Bobulescu v. Romania (II) (no. 20532/02)

Episcopia Română Unită cu Roma Oradea v. Romania (no. 26879/02)

Iring v. Romania (no. 34783/02)

Krajcsovics and Others v. Romania (no. 38023/02)

Mosoiu and Păsărin v. Romania (no. 10245/02)

Răţeanu v. Romania (no. 18729/05)

Reuniunea de Ajutor pentru Înmormântare Fratelia v. Romania (no. 35803/03)

S.C. Sefer S.A. v. Romania (no. 27784/04)

Silimon and Gross v. Romania (no. 19372/06)

Ţeţu v. Romania (no. 10108/02)

Vodă and Bob v. Romania (no. 7976/02)

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Cherebetiu and Pop v. Romania (no. 36476/03)

The above 13 applications concerned actions brought by the applicants for the recovery of real property. The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the Cherebetiu and Pop case the Court further held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Gâgă v. Romania (no. 42792/02)

Şerbănescu v. Romania (no. 33945/04)

In these two cases the applicants complained that the Supreme Court had set aside final judgments in their favour, alleging that this infringed the principle of legal certainty and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)

SC PLASTIK ABC SA v. Romania (no. 32299/03)

In this case the applicant company complained of the prejudice it had suffered when the Supreme Court set aside a final judgment in its favour. The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant company EUR 140,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 2,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses.

_________________
Who wants to live forever...


Raportează acest mesaj
Sus
 Profil  
Răspuns cu citat  
 Subiectul mesajului:
MesajScris: 16 Feb 2008, 11:17 
Membru senior
Membru senior

Membru din: 21 Noi 2003, 13:00
Mesaje: 775
Multumim, Norocel! :kiss:


Raportează acest mesaj
Sus
 Profil  
Răspuns cu citat  
Afişează mesajele din ultimele:  Sortează după  
Scrie un subiect nou Răspunde la subiect  [ 5 mesaje ] 

Ora este UTC + 2


Subiecte similare
 Subiecte   Autor   Răspunsuri   Vizualizări   Ultimul mesaj 
Nu sunt mesaje necitite noi în acest subiect. jurisprudenta CEDO

[ Du-te la paginaDu-te la pagina: 1, 2 ]

vincent

26

16078

05 Oct 2011, 19:20

Vizitator Vezi ultimul mesaj

Nu sunt mesaje necitite noi în acest subiect. CEDO?

[ Du-te la paginaDu-te la pagina: 1, 2 ]

codobelc

17

1320

05 Iul 2005, 07:39

croc Vezi ultimul mesaj

Nu sunt mesaje necitite noi în acest subiect. cedo??

simi

1

739

10 Feb 2007, 12:46

norocel Vezi ultimul mesaj

Nu sunt mesaje necitite noi în acest subiect. CEDO

popa maria

3

817

24 Sep 2012, 19:07

Vizitator Vezi ultimul mesaj

Nu sunt mesaje necitite noi în acest subiect. CEDO

popa maria

0

240

09 Sep 2012, 09:34

popa maria Vezi ultimul mesaj

 


Puteţi scrie subiecte noi în acest forum
Puteţi răspunde subiectelor din acest forum
Nu puteţi modifica mesajele dumneavoastră în acest forum
Nu puteţi şterge mesajele dumneavoastră în acest forum
Nu puteţi publica fişiere ataşate în acest forum

Căutare după:
Mergi la:  
Vorbeste cu altii!
Ultimele 50 de mesaje


pentru SNG - Scris de daria in Ce v-ar mai interesa? la 25 Jan, 21:38
SNG - Scris de daria in Alte discutii la 25 Jan, 18:57
Asociatiile de proprietari - un gol legislativ - Scris de Un locatar blajin in Alte discutii la 25 Jan, 16:15
Rugaminte parere contestatie la executare-presciere - Scris de vizitator in Executare silita la 25 Jan, 12:30
DECADERE DIN DREPTURI SI PLECARE DIN TARA CU MINOR - Scris de Andreea B in Consulta un avocat la 24 Jan, 14:17
Rog detalii pt. a completa Întâmpinarea şi Reconvenţionala - Scris de rmf in Procedura Civila la 24 Jan, 13:12
(aa)vocata manaila - Scris de Ioan Dorel Vlad in Barfe la 24 Jan, 01:12
societate comerciala parte vatamata si parte civila - Scris de Vizitator in Consulta un avocat la 23 Jan, 22:50
Contract de inchiriere - Scris de av Daniela Gheorghe in Comercial la 23 Jan, 18:54
Salariat care lucreaza si la o alta firma concurenta peste p - Scris de av Daniela Gheorghe in Comercial la 23 Jan, 18:51
Dizolvare -societatea nu a depus, timp de 3 ani consecutivi - Scris de av Daniela Gheorghe in Comercial la 23 Jan, 18:47
sunt acuzat de furt - Scris de av Daniela Gheorghe in Penal la 23 Jan, 18:29
citatie parchet - Scris de av Daniela Gheorghe in Penal la 23 Jan, 18:26
intabulare teren - Scris de vio in Consulta un avocat la 23 Jan, 15:43
Instintare Executare Silita SC EOS KSI - Scris de Vizitator in Executare silita la 23 Jan, 15:29
sase, vine manaila - Scris de Ioan Dorel Vlad in BAROU la 23 Jan, 13:52
incalcarea articolului 118 alin.5 - Scris de Vizitator in Consulta un avocat la 23 Jan, 13:50
ce-i democratia - Scris de Ioan Dorel Vlad in BAROU la 23 Jan, 00:16
amenda - Scris de emanuel29 in Procedura Civila la 23 Jan, 00:08
pot fi data in judecata daca am scris un articol in ziar? - Scris de Vizitator in Consulta un avocat la 22 Jan, 20:50
Franci elvetieni - Scris de Leon Carmen in Alte discutii la 22 Jan, 19:07
Drum teren - Scris de Adrian V in Civil la 22 Jan, 16:01
partaj - Scris de Andreea B in Consulta un avocat la 22 Jan, 13:07
Succesiune, moştenire - Scris de Andreea B in Consulta un avocat la 22 Jan, 12:56
divort cu copil minor - Scris de Vizitator in Consulta un avocat la 22 Jan, 12:51
sucesiune - Scris de giani in Consulta un avocat la 22 Jan, 10:33
Inselatorie sau abuz de incredere - Scris de Leon Carmen in Consulta un avocat la 22 Jan, 09:38
laie,laie, manalaie - Scris de Ioan Dorel Vlad in BAROU la 22 Jan, 09:32
Incasare comision de vinzare de la o firma straina - Scris de apaminerala in Comercial la 21 Jan, 21:22
Recurs proces penal - Scris de Rodik in Consulta un avocat la 21 Jan, 19:45
Lectii de Percutie pentru toate varstele-Boem Club - Scris de Boemclub in Alte discutii la 21 Jan, 17:36
Am cumparat o lucrare de licenta si am primit un plagiat - Scris de Vizitator in Penal la 21 Jan, 13:30
AVETI GRIJA DE MANAILA - Scris de Vizitator in Barfe la 21 Jan, 13:23
AVETI GRIJA DE MANAILA - Scris de Ioan Dorel Vlad in BAROU la 21 Jan, 12:55
- - Scris de Vizitator in Consulta un avocat la 20 Jan, 17:00
concluzii scrise - Scris de ionut marin in Procedura Civila la 20 Jan, 15:08
daca nu dai spaga nu cauta dreptate - Scris de Ioan Dorel Vlad in CEDO la 20 Jan, 14:38
(aa)devarul din justitie - Scris de Ioan Dorel Vlad in Executare silita la 20 Jan, 14:32
cjne-mi explica ce este o justitie, aadevar sau coruptie - Scris de Ioan Dorel Vlad in BAROU la 20 Jan, 14:28
rache ist süß.... - Scris de Joan Dorel Vlad in Alte discutii la 20 Jan, 14:24
tradare, tradare, dar sa stim si noi - Scris de Ioan Dorel Vlad in Barfe la 20 Jan, 14:20
DAR DE NUNTA DIN 1957 CONSIDERAT IN INSTANTA DONATIE - Scris de anelle in Succesiuni la 20 Jan, 11:43
consilier juridic asimilat magistratului - Scris de andreeapa in Ce v-ar mai interesa? la 20 Jan, 11:07
Conversie franci elveţieni - Scris de Vizitator in Consulta un avocat la 20 Jan, 08:51
Probleme Orange - KSI Kasolventia - Scris de scorpiogl88 in Alte discutii la 19 Jan, 21:09
cum nu vii tu Tepes doamne - Scris de Ioan Dorel Vlad in Dati de stire. la 19 Jan, 20:14
Teren afectat de PUZ - Scris de Bogdanc in Procedura Civila la 19 Jan, 16:34
Am lovit masina firmei... - Scris de Crisan Adrian in Muncii la 19 Jan, 12:45
Poprire pe tot salariul - Scris de Mihaela n in Executare silita la 18 Jan, 21:08
Proprire pe salariu - Scris de Catalin Joldes in Executare silita la 18 Jan, 13:02
s
u
s
s
t
o
p
j
o
s
  • alegi un avocat
  • te intalnesti cu un avocat
  • semnezi cu un avocat
  • Cauta un avocat
    Dupa nume:
    Dupa cabinet:
    DOCUMENTE UTILE
    Timbru de mediu
    Dobanda legala
    Taxa judiciara de timbru
    Cunoaste-ti problema
    Penal
    Civil
    Comercial
    Proprietate Intelectuala
    Contencios administrativ si fiscal
    Litigii de munca
    Minori si familie
    Asigurari sociale
    Faliment - procedura insolventei
    Drept maritim si fluvial
    CEDO
    Utilizatori online:
    raluca, 28 utilizatori neinregistrati
    Cautari frecvente:
    Powered by phpBB Group
    Acceptand sa utilizati acest site, declarati in mod expres si implicit ca sunteti de acord cu Termenii si Conditiile impuse de SC CND LEGALIS SRL. Preluarea si reproducerea informatiilor si imaginilor publicate pe site-ul www.avocatura.com se poate face doar cu respectarea Termenilor si Conditiilor. SC CND LEGALIS SRL este operator de date cu caracter personal inscris in registrul de evidenta a prelucrarilor de date cu caracter personal sub nr. 20896 si nr. 21292. © Copyright SC Avocatura.com SRL 2005-2010 ©   Copyright SC CND LEGALIS SRL 2011