Weitere Entscheidung unten: EKMR, 08.01.1992

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90, 9/1993/404/482   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1994,13361
EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90, 9/1993/404/482 (https://dejure.org/1994,13361)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19.04.1994 - 16034/90, 9/1993/404/482 (https://dejure.org/1994,13361)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19. April 1994 - 16034/90, 9/1993/404/482 (https://dejure.org/1994,13361)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1994,13361) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (429)Neu Zitiert selbst (21)

  • EGMR, 23.10.1985 - 8848/80

    BENTHEM v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
    In the Court's opinion, the power to give a binding decision which may not be altered by a non-judicial authority to the detriment of an individual party is inherent in the very notion of a "tribunal", as is confirmed by the word "determination" ("qui décidera") (compare the following judgments: Benthem v. the Netherlands, 23 October 1985, Series A no. 97, p. 17, para. 40; H. v. Belgium, 30 November 1987, Series A no. 127, p. 34, para. 50; and Belilos v. Switzerland, 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 29, para. 64).

    Some of these critical comments date from after the Court's judgment in the Benthem v. the Netherlands case (23 October 1985, Series A no. 97)[17], but several antedate that landmark decision.

    [10] Giving the "final say" to the executive was symptomatic of the attitude which also was at the root of the "appeal to the Crown" that the Court condemned in its Benthem v. the Netherlands judgment of 23 October 1983, Series A no. 97.

  • EGMR, 22.04.1993 - 15070/89

    MODINOS c. CHYPRE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
    There was nothing to prevent the Crown (in the person of the Minister of Agriculture, Nature Conservancy and Fisheries) from availing itself of the powers thereby conferred upon it had it considered such a course of action necessary or desirable in view of what it might perceive as the general interest (see, mutatis mutandis, the De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 24, para. 48, and the Modinos v. Cyprus judgment of 22 April 1993, Series A no. 259, p. 11, para. 23).

    [2] See the Modinos v. Cyprus judgment of 22 April 1993, Series A no. 259, p. 11, para.

  • EGMR, 27.11.1991 - 12565/86

    OERLEMANS c. PAYS-BAS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
    In the second place, the Government suggested that since the Convention was directly applicable in the Netherlands, the applicant could - under well-established principles of Netherlands law (see the Oerlemans v. the Netherlands judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A no. 219, p. 22, para. 57) - have taken his case to the civil courts on the ground that the Industrial Appeals Tribunal could not be considered an independent tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention.

    [28] It follows that it is open to doubt whether even after the present judgment the Netherlands civil courts will feel bound to assume jurisdiction under the principles of Netherlands law referred to in the Oerlemans v. the Netherlands judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A no. 219, p. 22, para.

     
  • EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13914/88

    INFORMATIONSVEREIN LENTIA AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
    44, and the Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 276, p. 13, para.
  • EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
    Whether or not the requirements of Article 6 (art. 6) have been met cannot be assessed with reference to the applicant's chances of success alone, since this provision does not guarantee any particular outcome (see, inter alia and mutatis mutandis, the Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C, p. 62, para. 40).
  • EGMR, 24.08.1993 - 13924/88

    NORTIER c. PAYS-BAS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
    A defect of this nature may, however, be remedied by the availability of a form of subsequent review by a judicial body that affords all the guarantees required by Article 6 (art. 6) (see, as recent authorities and mutatis mutandis, the following judgments: 24 August 1993, Nortier v. the Netherlands, Series A no. 267, p. 16, para. 36; 25 November 1993, Holm v. Sweden, Series A no. 279-A, p. 16, para. 33).
  • EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

    MARCKX v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
    In this respect it is sufficient to refer to the Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, and especially to the judgments in the cases concerning homosexuals and transsexuals[25].
  • EGMR, 19.04.1993 - 13942/88

    KRASKA c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
    1 (art. 6-1) is, inter alia, to place the "tribunal" under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties, without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant to its decision (see the Kraska v. Switzerland judgment of 19 April 1993, Series A no. 254-B, p. 49, para. 30).
  • EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

    Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
    [1] See the Klass and Others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 18, para.
  • EGMR, 07.10.1988 - 10519/83

    SALABIAKU c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
    [5] See, as the most recent authority, the Salabiaku v. France judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A, p. 16, par.
  • EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

    H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 25.11.1993 - 14191/88

    HOLM v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88

    OPEN DOOR AND DUBLIN WELL WOMAN v. IRELAND

  • EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13191/87

    PHAM HOANG c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

    DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  • EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87

    RUIZ-MATEOS c. ESPAGNE

  • EGMR, 27.09.1990 - 10843/84

    COSSEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

    HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  • EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

    DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  • EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

    FEY v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

    BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND

  • BVerfG, 15.12.2015 - 2 BvR 2735/14

    Gewährleistung einzelfallbezogenen Grundrechtsschutzes im Rahmen der …

    Das Gericht hat die Pflicht, die Ausführungen und Beweisangebote der Parteien ernsthaft zu prüfen (vgl. EGMR, Van de Hurk v. Niederlande, Urteil vom 19. April 1994, Nr. 16034/90, § 59).
  • EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

    Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland

    The Convention institutions had on numerous occasions examined the compatibility with the Convention of the discretion exercised by a State in applying Community law (see, inter alia, Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288; Procola v. Luxembourg, judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 326; Cantoni and Hornsby, both cited above; Pafitis and Others v. Greece, judgment of 26 February 1998, Reports 1998-I; Matthews, cited above; S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, ECHR 2002-III; and Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, ECHR 2002-III).
  • BVerfG, 08.11.2022 - 2 BvR 2480/10

    Verfassungsbeschwerden betreffend das Rechtsschutzsystem des Europäischen …

    Das Gericht hat nach Art. 6 EMRK Ausführungen oder Beweisangebote zur Kenntnis zu nehmen, zu prüfen und zu würdigen, muss aber nicht jeden Parteivortrag berücksichtigen, sondern nur auf die Hauptargumente des Vortrags eingehen (vgl. EGMR, van de Hurk v. Netherlands, Urteil vom 19. April 1994, Nr. 16034/90, § 59; Goktepe v. Belgium, Urteil vom 2. Juni 2005, Nr. 50372/99, § 25; Buzesku v. Romania, Urteil vom 24. Mai 2005, Nr. 61302/00, § 67).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EKMR, 08.01.1992 - 16034/90   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1992,23942
EKMR, 08.01.1992 - 16034/90 (https://dejure.org/1992,23942)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 08.01.1992 - 16034/90 (https://dejure.org/1992,23942)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 08. Januar 1992 - 16034/90 (https://dejure.org/1992,23942)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1992,23942) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht