Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 11.10.2005

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 28867/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,31295
EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 28867/03 (https://dejure.org/2006,31295)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.07.2006 - 28867/03 (https://dejure.org/2006,31295)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Juli 2006 - 28867/03 (https://dejure.org/2006,31295)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,31295) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

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 ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

  • EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 41604/98

    Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und der Wohnung (Einsatz von Durchsuchungen

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 28867/03
    The Court will assess in particular whether the reasons adduced to justify such measures were relevant and sufficient and whether there were adequate and effective safeguards against abuse (see, for example, Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, §§ 44-45, ECHR 2005-IV).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 28867/03
    While it does not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State's laws to be challenged before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 40, Series A no. 247-C), where an applicant has an arguable claim to a violation of a Convention right, however, the domestic regime must afford an effective remedy (ibid., § 39).
  • EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

    BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 28867/03
    Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, for example, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
  • EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

    OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 28867/03
    According to the Court's settled case-law, the notion of necessity implies that the interference corresponds to a "pressing social need" and in particular that it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see, for example, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 67, Series A no. 130).
  • EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

    VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 28867/03
    The question the Court must therefore address is whether the applicants had a remedy at national level to "enforce the substance of the Convention rights... in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the domestic legal order" (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, §§ 117-27, Series A no. 215).
  • EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

    FUNKE v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 28867/03
    While a certain margin of appreciation is left to the Contracting States, the exceptions provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 8 are to be interpreted narrowly and the need for measures in a given case must be convincingly established (see Funke v. France, 25 February 1993, § 55, Series A no. 256-A).
  • EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 33696/11

    Steuerhinterziehung: Steuer-CDs dürfen für Strafverfolgung genutzt werden

    In determining whether an interference is "necessary in a democratic society", the Court will take into account that a margin of appreciation is left to the Contracting States (see Keegan v. the United Kingdom , no. 28867/03, § 31, ECHR 2006-X).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 77691/11

    G.R.S. v. THE NETHERLANDS

    The national authorities enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in this matter (see Keegan v. the United Kingdom, no. 28867/03, § 31, ECHR 2006-X).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 41509/12

    SOLEIMANKHEEL AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

    The national authorities enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in this matter (see Keegan v. the United Kingdom, no. 28867/03, § 31, ECHR 2006-X).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 72586/11

    E.K. v. THE NETHERLANDS

    The national authorities enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in this matter (see Keegan v. the United Kingdom, no. 28867/03, § 31, ECHR 2006-X).
  • EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 15993/09

    M.M. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

    The national authorities enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in this matter (see Keegan v. the United Kingdom, no. 28867/03, § 31, ECHR 2006-X).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 43538/11

    E.P. AND A.R. v. THE NETHERLANDS

    The national authorities enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in this matter (see Keegan v. the United Kingdom, no. 28867/03, § 31, ECHR 2006-X).
  • EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 43478/11

    HAMBARDZUMYAN v. ARMENIA

    In the absence of any specific domestic provisions it is not at all clear whether the Court of Appeal was empowered to examine whether the contested interference answered a pressing social need and was proportionate to the aims pursued (Peck v. the United Kingdom, no. 44647/98, §§ 105-107, ECHR 2003-I; and Keegan v. the United Kingdom, no. 28867/03, §§ 40-43, ECHR 2006-X).
  • EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 59589/10

    KONSTANTIN MOSKALEV v. RUSSIA

    The Court has already found on a number of occasions, in the context of Article 8, that a judicial review remedy which was incapable of examining whether the contested interference answered a pressing social need and was proportionate to the aims pursued did not meet the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention (see Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, §§ 135-39, ECHR 1999-VI; Peck v. the United Kingdom, no. 44647/98, §§ 105-07, ECHR 2003-I; and Keegan v. the United Kingdom, no. 28867/03, §§ 40-43, ECHR 2006-X).
  • EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 25707/05

    ERDURAN AND EM EXPORT DIS TIC. A.S. v. TURKEY

    In determining whether an interference is "necessary in a democratic society", the Court will take into account that a margin of appreciation is left to the Contracting States (see Keegan v. the United Kingdom, no. 28867/03, § 31, ECHR 2006-X).
  • EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 41085/05

    BAGIYEVA v. UKRAINE

    Article 13 requires an effective remedy in domestic law in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, for example, Keegan v. the United Kingdom, no. 28867/03, § 40, ECHR 2006-X).
  • EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 47889/08

    VOYKIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 33015/06

    VOSKOBOYNIKOV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41716/06

    GOLOVAN v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR - 26067/08 (anhängig)

    BELINSKAYA v. RUSSIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 28867/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,42274
EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 28867/03 (https://dejure.org/2005,42274)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11.10.2005 - 28867/03 (https://dejure.org/2005,42274)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11. Oktober 2005 - 28867/03 (https://dejure.org/2005,42274)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,42274) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

  • EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 21987/93

    AKSOY c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 28867/03
    Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (e.g. Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, no. 21893/93, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1996-IV; Aksoy v. Turkey, no. 21987/93, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1996-VI).
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