Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  L.C.B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 10, Art. 11, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  L.C.B. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 10, Art. 11, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Partiellement recevable Partiellement irrecevable (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 28.11.1995 - 23413/94
• EKMR, 30.01.1997 - 23413/94
• EGMR, 09.06.1998 - 23413/94

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EKMR, 06.07.1988 - 12015/86

  HILTON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.11.1995 - 23413/94

  It is also recalled that where there is no final decision, the six-month time-limitnormally runs from the date of the acts or decisions of which the applicant complains but that that period can only begin to run from the moment the applicant learns of that act or decision (cf., for example, No. 12015/86, Dec. 6.7.88, D.R. 57 p. 108).

  However, the Commission has examined the submissions of the applicant as to the alleged interceptions and considers that the applicant has not adduced sufficient evidence to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the applicant's communications have been intercepted (loc. cit. No. 12015/86, p. 119).

• EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87

  DEMICOLI v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.11.1995 - 23413/94

  In addition, the burden of proving the existence of available and sufficient remedies lies upon the State invoking non-exhaustion (No. 13057/87, Dec. 15.3.89, D.R. 60 p. 243).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14838/89

  A. v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.11.1995 - 23413/94

  The Commission recalls that, though the applicant raises these complaints under Articles 10 and 11 (Art. 10, 11) of the Convention, the lex specialis as regards alleged interference with communication of information or ideas by correspondence is Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention and it is further recalled that communication by telephone is included in that concept of "correspondence" (No. 8231/78, Dec. 12.10.83, D.R. 49 p. 5 and Eur. Court H.R., A v. France judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-B).

 
• EKMR, 06.03.1982 - 8231/78

  X. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.11.1995 - 23413/94

  The Commission recalls that, though the applicant raises these complaints under Articles 10 and 11 (Art. 10, 11) of the Convention, the lex specialis as regards alleged interference with communication of information or ideas by correspondence is Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention and it is further recalled that communication by telephone is included in that concept of "correspondence" (No. 8231/78, Dec. 12.10.83, D.R. 49 p. 5 and Eur. Court H.R., A v. France judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-B).
• EKMR, 01.07.1992 - 13156/87

  BYRN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.11.1995 - 23413/94

  The Commission recalls that, according to the constant case-law of the Convention organs, the applicant is required to exhaust only domestic remedies that are likely to be effective and adequate (see, for example, No. 13156/87, Dec. 1.7.92, D.R. 73 p. 5).
• EKMR, 12.12.1985 - 10293/83

  B. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.11.1995 - 23413/94

  The Commission considers that the applicant's participation in the initial global application received by the Commission in April 1993 constituted sufficient introduction of her application before the Commission for the purposes of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention (No. 10293/83 Dec. 12.12.85, D.R. 45 p. 41).
• EKMR, 13.07.1987 - 12097/86

  KÜNZI-BRENZIKOFER AND OTHERS v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.11.1995 - 23413/94

  A remedy which clearly lacks any prospect of success is not considered a domestic remedy which must, pursuant to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, be exhausted (No. 12097/86, Dec. 13.7.87, D.R. 53 p. 210).