Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 28610/95 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1996,31729) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
HANDWERKER v. GERMANY
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EKMR, 09.10.1984 - 10475/83
DYER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 28610/95
1 (Art. 14+6-1) of the Convention (see No. 10475/83, Dec. 9.10.84, D.R. 39 p. 246).The pension scheme, on the other hand, circumvents the inherent difficulties of establishing negligence by providing immediate and certain coverage of the needs of all persons injured in an accident at work who fall within the scheme of the Social Insurance Code (see No. 10475/83, Dec. 9.10.84, D.R. 39 pp. 246-254).
- EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88
KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 28610/95
The Commission recalls further that for the purpose Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention a difference in treatment is discriminatory only if it has no objective and reasonable justification or if there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (Eur. Court HR, Darby v. Sweden judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187, p. 12, para. 31; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, p. 32, para. 24). - EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 11581/85
DARBY v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 28610/95
The Commission recalls further that for the purpose Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention a difference in treatment is discriminatory only if it has no objective and reasonable justification or if there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (Eur. Court HR, Darby v. Sweden judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187, p. 12, para. 31; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, p. 32, para. 24). - EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90
FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 28610/95
In this way the Article embodies a "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before a court in civil matters, constitutes one aspect only (Eur. Court HR, Fayed v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 September 1994 Series A no. 294-B, p. 49, para. 65).