Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  McKENZIE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EKMR, 01.12.1993 - 22301/93

  1 (Art. 6-1) as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence" (see eg. Eur. Court H.R. Deweer judgment, loc. cit. p. 24 para. 46; Eckle judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 33 para. 73).
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 01.12.1993 - 22301/93

  In deciding whether there is a "contestation" as to a civil right, the Court has held that the word "contestation" should be given a substantive rather than a formal meaning (Eur. Court H.R., Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p.20, para. 45).
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 01.12.1993 - 22301/93

  1 (Art. 6-1) does not in itself however guarantee any particular content for "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the contracting states (see eg. Eur. Court H.R., James and others judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, para. 81; Eur. Court H.R., Lithgow and other judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 70, para. 192).

 
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 01.12.1993 - 22301/93

  It is clear from the case-law of the Court that for proceedings to amount to a "contestation'it is sufficient that the outcome should be "decisive for private rights and obligations" (see eg. Eur. Court H.R., Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p.39, para. 94; Eur. Court H.R., H v. France judgment of 24 October 1989, Series A no. 162-A, p. 20 para. 47; Eur. Court H.R., Benthem judgment of 23 October 1985, Series A no.97, p. 16 para. 36).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 01.12.1993 - 22301/93

  1 (Art. 6-1) is not absolute, but may be regulated by States, which have a certain margin of appreciation, provided the essence of the right is not impaired (see Eur. Court H.R,, Ashingdane judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, pp.24-25 para.s 55-57).
• EGMR, 26.03.1982 - 8269/78

  Adolf ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EKMR, 01.12.1993 - 22301/93

  The prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial favours a substantive rather than a formal conception of the "charge" referred to by Article 6 (Art. 6) (see Eur. Court H.R., Adolf judgment of 26 March 1982, Series A no. 49, p. 15 para. 30).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 01.12.1993 - 22301/93

  It only applies if the applicant can be said to have an "arguable claim" of a violation of the Convention (Eur. Court H.R., Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23 para. 52).

• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12628/09

  DZHIDZHEVA-TRENDAFILOVA v. BULGARIA

  35-36, § 173; M. v. France, no. 9984/82, Commission decision of 17 October 1985, DR 44, p. 54; and McKenzie v. the United Kingdom, no. 22301/93, Commission decision of 1 December 1993, unreported).