Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 23.05.2002

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,29757
EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96 (https://dejure.org/2005,29757)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19.10.2005 - 32555/96 (https://dejure.org/2005,29757)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19. Oktober 2005 - 32555/96 (https://dejure.org/2005,29757)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,29757) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13+6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. ... 14+6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 14+6, Art. 13+6 MRK
    Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 Non-violation de P1-1 Non-violation de l'art. 14+6 ou 14+P1-1 Non-violation de l'art. 13+6 ou 13+P1-1 Violation de l'art. 8 Non-violation de l'art. 10 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ROCHE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13+6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. ... 14+6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 14+6, Art. 13+6 MRK
    No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of P1-1 No violation of Art. 14+6 or 14+P1-1 No violation of Art. 13+6 or 13+P1-1 Violation of Art. 8 No violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial ...

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • NJW 2007, 1663 (Ls.)
 
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 ... (165)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

  • EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 37112/97

    FOGARTY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
    In concluding that section 10 amounted to a procedural bar to an existing right of action in tort and in thus finding Article 6 applicable, the High Court relied, in particular, on Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 10 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV) and Fogarty v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 37112/97, ECHR 2001-XI).

    Admittedly, the judgment in Fogarty v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 37112/97, ECHR 2001-XI) regarding immunities differs from the present case.

  • EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

    POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
    Connected to this, he questioned the distinction between a restriction which delimits the substantive content properly speaking of the relevant civil right, to which the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 do not apply (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, pp. 16-17, § 36, and Z and Others, cited above, § 100), and a restriction which amounts to a procedural bar preventing the bringing of potential claims to court, to which Article 6 could have some application (see Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others, p. 1657, § 62; Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, §§ 48-49, ECHR 2001-XI; Fogarty, § 26; and McElhinney, § 25).

    In such cases the question whether any particular claim fell within this category or not would have had to have been decided by the courts on the basis of the relevant facts (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172) concerning the substantive limitation under section 76(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982).

  • EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

    McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
    In the first place, he maintained that the procedures and systems surrounding the tests did not fulfil the procedural requirements inherent in respect for private life, so that the Government had failed adequately to secure and respect his Article 8 interests (see W. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1987, Series A no. 121, and McMichael v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B).
  • EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

    PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
    Just as Articles 2 and 3 implied an investigatory requirement (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324; Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, 4 May 2001; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99 ECHR 2002-II; and Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V), so a similar obligation arose under Article 8 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10454/83

    GASKIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
    Relying mainly on the Court's judgments in Gaskin v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 160), Guerra and Others v. Italy (judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I) and McGinley and Egan (cited above), he maintained that he had a right to information under Article 8 to allow him to understand and react to the risks and dangers to which he had been exposed.
  • EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 47916/99

    MENSON contre le ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
    Just as Articles 2 and 3 implied an investigatory requirement (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324; Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, 4 May 2001; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99 ECHR 2002-II; and Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V), so a similar obligation arose under Article 8 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94

    HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
    Just as Articles 2 and 3 implied an investigatory requirement (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324; Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, 4 May 2001; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99 ECHR 2002-II; and Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V), so a similar obligation arose under Article 8 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

    LEANDER c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
    The Court reiterates its conclusion in Leander v. Sweden (judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 29, § 74) and in Gaskin (cited above, p. 21, § 52) and, more recently, confirmed in Guerra and Others (cited above, p. 226, § 53), that the freedom to receive information "prohibits a Government from restricting a person from receiving information that others wish or may be willing to impart to him" and that that freedom "cannot be construed as imposing on a State, in circumstances such as those of the present case, positive obligations to... disseminate information of its own motion".
  • EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

    PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
    For the reasons outlined in the context of Article 6, the applicant maintained that he had a "possession" (a claim in negligence against the MOD) until deprived of it, in an unjustified manner, when the Secretary of State issued the section 10 certificate (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31).
  • EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

    McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
    Just as Articles 2 and 3 implied an investigatory requirement (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324; Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, 4 May 2001; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99 ECHR 2002-II; and Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V), so a similar obligation arose under Article 8 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

    VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

  • EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

    MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  • EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

    LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

    GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 44759/98

    Verletzung des Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren durch überlange Verfahrensdauer;

  • EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

    König ./. Deutschland

  • EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

    FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

    ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

    S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

    Nach Art. 41 EMRK sind nur solche Kosten und Auslagen zu ersetzen, die tatsächlich und notwendigerweise entstanden und der Höhe nach angemessen sind (s. u.a. EGMR, Slg. 2005-X Nr. 182 = NJOZ 2007, 865 - Roche/Vereinigtes Königreich, mit weiteren Nachweisen).

    Nach Art. 41 EMRK sind nur solche Kosten und Auslagen zu ersetzen, die tatsächlich und notwendigerweise entstanden und der Höhe nach angemessen sind (s. u.a. EGMR, Slg. 2005-X Nr. 182 = NJOZ 2007, 865 - Roche/Vereinigtes Königreich, mit weiteren Nachweisen).

  • EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

    MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

    In Guerra and Others v. Italy and Roche v. the United Kingdom, the Court had held that the freedom to receive information could not be construed as imposing on a Contracting Party to the Convention positive obligations to collect and disseminate information of their own motion (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 53, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 172, ECHR 2005-X).
  • OVG Nordrhein-Westfalen, 18.12.2013 - 5 A 413/11

    Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben muss der Presse Auskunft über die Vermietung

    vgl. EGMR, Urteile vom 13. März 2012 - 44585/10 -, NJW 2013, 521, 522, und vom 19. Oktober 2005 - 32555/96 -, NJOZ 2007, 865, 872, Rn. 172.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 23.05.2002 - 32555/96   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2002,46900
EGMR, 23.05.2002 - 32555/96 (https://dejure.org/2002,46900)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.05.2002 - 32555/96 (https://dejure.org/2002,46900)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. Mai 2002 - 32555/96 (https://dejure.org/2002,46900)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2002,46900) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ROCHE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
    Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

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 (4)

  • EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 37112/97

    FOGARTY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2002 - 32555/96
    In finding that section 10 amounted to a procedural bar to an existing right of action in tort and in thus finding Article 6 applicable, the High Court relied on the Tinnelly and McElduff judgment (Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 10 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV), and on the Fogarty judgment (Fogarty v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 37112/97, § 26, ECHR 2001-XI).
  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10454/83

    GASKIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2002 - 32555/96
    As to his complaint under Article 8, the Government maintain that Article 8 does not apply: it does not confer a general right of access to information and the principles underlining the access of Mr Gaskin to his childhood care documents, are not applicable in the present case (Gaskin v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 160).
  • EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

    LEANDER c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2002 - 32555/96
    As to Article 10, the Government point out that there is no right of access to information guaranteed by that Article (Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116) and, even if there has been an interference with the applicant's Article 10 rights, it was justifiable for the reasons outlined above in relation to Article 8 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

    KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2002 - 32555/96
    The Court considers therefore that the question of the applicant's completion of those procedures should be joined to the merits of his complaints (Kremzow v. Austria judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, § 42, and the above-cited McGinley and Egan judgment, § 75).
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