Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  McFEELEY et al. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 3, Art. ... 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 18, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Partiellement irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  McFEELEY et al. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 3, Art. ... 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 18, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (22)

• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

  Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens

  It considers, like the Commission (see, in particular, the decisions in McFeeley and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 8317/78, 15 May 1980, § 83, Decisions and Reports (DR) 20, and Kara v. the United Kingdom, no. 36528/97, 22 October 1998), that this is also true for a choice of clothing.
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 8319/07

  SUFI AND ELMI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  However, it has also on occasion found that where an applicant is advised by counsel that an appeal offers no prospects of success, that appeal does not constitute an effective remedy (see Selvanayagam v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57981/00, 12 December 2002; see also H. v. the United Kingdom, cited above; and McFeeley and others v. the United Kingdom, no. 8317/78, Commission decision of 15 May 1980, Decisions and Reports (DR) 20, p. 44).
• EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 49327/11

  Ohne Kleidung durch England: Nackt-Wanderer verliert

  Relying on McFeeley and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 8317/78, Commission decision of 15 May 1980, Decisions and Reports (DR), 20, p. 44, he maintained that his case concerned a permanent state of affairs which was still continuing and that the question of the six-month rule could only arise after the state of affairs had ceased.

 
• EKMR, 07.03.1988 - 11701/85

  E. v. NORWAY

  Under Article 3 (Art. 3), the Commission has previously been confronted with a number of cases of prison conditions, including isolation of varying duration and severity (cf. inter alia No. 6038/73, Dec. 11.7.73, Collection 44 p. 115; No. 7854/77, Dec. 12.7.78, D.R. 12 p. 185; No. 8317/78, Dec. 15.5.80, D.R. 20 p. 44).

  It has moreover drawn a distinction between this and removal from association with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons, and would not normally consider that this form of segregation from the prison community amounts to inhuman treatment or punishment (cf. No. 5310/71, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Comm. Rep. 25.1.76, p. 379; Nos. 7572/76, 7586/76 and 7587/76, Dec. 8.7.78, D.R. 14 p. 64 and No. 8317/78 mentioned above).

• EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99

  VAN DER VEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  20-21, §§ 117-118; McFeeley et autres c. Royaume-Uni, requête no 8317/78, décision de la Commission du 15 mai 1980, DR 20, p. 44).
• EKMR, 09.07.1991 - 14610/89

  TREHOLT c. NORVEGE

  Under Article 3 (Art. 3), the Commission has previously been confronted with a number of cases concerning prison conditions, including isolation of varying duration and severity (cf. inter alia No. 6038/73, Dec. 11.7.73, Collection 44 p. 115; No. 7854/77, Dec. 12.7.78, D.R. 12 p. 185; No. 8317/78, Dec. 15.5.80, D.R. 30 p. 44).

  It has, however, drawn a distinction between this kind of isolation and removal from association with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons; it does not normally consider that this form of segregation from the prison community amounts to inhuman treatment or punishment (cf. No. 5310/71, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Comm. Rep. 25.1.76, p. 379; Nos. 7572/76, 7586/76 and 7587/76, dec. 8.7.78, D.R. 14 p. 64 and No. 8317/78 mentioned above).

• EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 52750/99

  LORSE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  v. the United Kingdom, application no. 8317/78, Commission decision of 15 May 1980, DR 20, p. 44).
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 13668/21

  MELIA v. GEORGIA

  The Court has specified that an application is not an abuse of the right of application merely because of the fact that it is motivated by the desire for publicity or propaganda (see, for instance, McFeeley v. the United Kingdom, no. 8317/78, Commission decision of 15 May 1980) unless it is clearly unsupported by evidence or is outside the scope of the Convention (see Buscarini and Others v. San Marino, no. 24645/94, Commission decision of 7 April 1997).
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 29582/09

  YAKUT REPUBLICAN TRADE-UNION FEDERATION v. RUSSIA

  v. the United Kingdom, no. 8317/78, Commission decision of 15 May 1980, §§ 114-15, Decisions and Reports (DR) 20, p. 44).
• EGMR, 29.01.2014 - 31721/10

  N.M. c. FRANCE

  Cependant elle a aussi pu considérer à certaines occasions que lorsqu'un avocat a conseillé à un requérant de ne pas interjeter appel en raison de l'absence de chance de succès, cet appel ne constitue pas une voie de recours effective (voir Selvanayagam c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 57981/00, 12 décembre 2002 ; voir aussi McFeeley et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 8317/78, décision de la Commission du 15 mai 1980, Décisions et rapports (DR) 20, p. 44).
• EGMR, 13.03.2003 - 33878/96

  A.B. contre la POLOGNE
• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 22669/10

  ALI v. NORWAY
• EKMR, 06.04.1994 - 21132/93

  PETERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EKMR, 02.03.1998 - 33830/96

  VENETUCCI v. ITALY
• EKMR, 27.10.1997 - 33689/96

  ANDERSON AND NINE OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 12.01.1995 - 21915/93

  LUKANOV c. BULGARIE
• EKMR, 19.05.1994 - 23159/94

  DRESHAJ c. FINLANDE
• EKMR, 10.03.1988 - 13047/87

  B. v. the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 55120/09

  AGALAR v. NORWAY
• EGMR - 50779/16 (anhängig)

  RESIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 41767/11

  J.A.T. AND J.B.T. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 12.05.1988 - 12175/86

  P.H. and H.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM