Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96 |
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
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 23.05.2002 - 32555/96
- EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
Papierfundstellen
- NJW 2007, 1663 (Ls.)
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.
- EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 17056/06
MICALLEF v. MALTA
Premièrement, le droit en jeu tant dans la procédure au principal que dans la procédure d'injonction doit être «de caractère civil» au sens autonome que revêt cette notion dans le cadre de l'article 6 de la Convention (voir, entre autres, Raffineries grecques Stran et Stratis Andreadis c. Grèce, 9 décembre 1994, § 39, série A no 301-B, König c. Allemagne, 28 juin 1978, §§ 89-90, série A no 27, Ferrazzini c. Italie [GC], no 44759/98, §§ 24-31, CEDH 2001-VII, et Roche c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 32555/96, § 119, CEDH 2005-X). - EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 29381/09
Homosexualität in Griechenland
La Cour rappelle que l'article 13 ne va pas jusqu'à exiger un recours par lequel on puisse dénoncer, devant une autorité nationale, les lois d'un Etat contractant comme contraires en tant que telles à la Convention (voir, entre autres, Roche c. Royaume-Uni [GC], 19 octobre 2005, no 32555/96, § 137, CEDH 2005-X, et Paksas c. Lituanie [GC], no 34932/04, 6 janvier 2011, § 114).James et autres c. Royaume-Uni, 21 février 1986, § 85, série A no 98, Roche c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 32555/96, § 137, CEDH 2005-X, et Paksas c. Lituanie [GC], no 34932/04, § 114, CEDH 2011 (extraits).
- EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 3455/05
A. u. a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
As for the more fundamental aspect of the complaints, that the very nature of the detention scheme in Part 4 of the 2001 Act gave rise to a breach of Article 3, the Court recalls that Article 13 does not guarantee a remedy allowing a challenge to primary legislation before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention (James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, § 85, Series A no. 98; Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 137, ECHR 2005-X). - EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12
Ungarn verstößt gegen Menschenrechtskonvention
Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee any particular content for (civil) "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States: the Court may not create by way of interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see, for example, Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X, and Boulois, cited above, § 91).It is worth noting that in its judgment in the Paksas v. Lithuania case ([GC], no. 34932/04, ECHR 2011 (extracts)), the Court explained that "Article 13 of the Convention, which does not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State's laws as such to be challenged before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention (see, for example, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 85, Series A no. 98; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 113, ECHR 2002-VI; Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 137, ECHR 2005-X; and Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria, no. 33726/03, § 47, 1 October 2009), likewise cannot require the provision of a remedy allowing a constitutional precedent with statutory force to be challenged" (Paksas, § 114).
- EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 18766/11
Italien muß Rechtsrahmen für gleichgeschlechtliche Lebensgemeinschaft schaffen
Regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole, the aims in the second paragraph of Article 8 being of a certain relevance (see Gaskin v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 42, Series A no. 160, and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 157, ECHR 2005-X). - EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11
DENISOV v. UKRAINE
Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee any particular content for (civil) "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States: the Court may not create by way of interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see, for example, Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 117, ECHR 2005-X). - EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 12886/16
POLAT v. AUSTRIA
Admissibility Applicability of Article 8 of the Convention 93. The Court reiterates that the right of access to information relating to one's private and/or family life raises an issue under Article 8 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, §§ 155-56, ECHR 2005-X; and, in particular, Lozovyye v. Russia, no. 4587/09, § 32, 24 April 2018, in which the Court found that Article 8 was applicable to a situation where the family of a murder victim had not been informed of his death and had not been able to attend the funeral). - EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03
MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05
KENNEDY c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 5809/08
AL-DULIMI AND MONTANA MANAGEMENT INC. v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06
STANEV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 56665/09
KÁROLY NAGY c. HONGRIE
- OVG Nordrhein-Westfalen, 13.03.2013 - 5 A 1293/11
Kein Anspruch eines Journalisten auf Fotografieren bei Opernpremieren
- EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 42730/05
SAVDA c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 35289/11
REGNER c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
- EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 65542/12
STICHTING MOTHERS OF SREBRENICA AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 6987/07
GUSEVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 52806/09
VILNES AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 09.05.2006 - 60255/00
PEREIRA HENRIQUES c. LUXEMBOURG
- EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 17895/14
EVERS v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 06.01.2011 - 34932/04
Rolandas Paksas
- EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 40792/10
Russland will sich EGMR-Urteil widersetzen: Keine Kompromisse bei …
- EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 70945/11
Ungarns Kirchengesetz verletzt die Menschenrechte
- EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 38254/04
Rechtsschutz für Pfarrer: Kirchlicher Streit vor weltlichem Richter
- EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 32881/04
K.H. AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06
McFARLANE v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 10.07.2006 - 19101/03
SDRUZENÍ JIHOCESKÉ MATKY c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09
KÁROLY NAGY v. HUNGARY
- VGH Bayern, 14.02.2014 - 5 ZB 13.1559
Akteneinsicht im Petitionsverfahren beim Bayerischen Landtag
- EGMR, 16.11.2010 - 926/05
TAXQUET v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 24989/17
ÐURIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 60908/11
BRINCAT AND OTHERS v. MALTA
- EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 37575/04
BOULOIS c. LUXEMBOURG
- EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 12986/04
MULLER c. ALLEMAGNE
- EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 74912/01
ENEA c. ITALIE
- VG Köln, 04.07.2013 - 13 K 5751/12
Notrufaufzeichnungen müssen nicht herausgegeben werden
- BSG, 29.08.2007 - B 6 KA 48/06 B
Eröffnung des Zugangs zum Revisionsgericht, Suspendierung von Ausschlussfristen …
- EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 26053/07
DOSSI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 40160/12
ZUBAC c. CROATIE
- EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 14717/04
BERGER-KRALL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 970/04
SULTANA v. MALTA
- EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 48173/18
CANGI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 76943/11
PAROISSE GRÉCO-CATHOLIQUE LUPENI ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 34238/09
LHERMITTE c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 28881/07
ORAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 75725/01
TROCELLIER v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 24816/14
HUDOROVIC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 38191/12
A.K. v. LIECHTENSTEIN
- EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 21737/03
HARALAMBIE c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07
BILGEN v. TURKEY
- KG, 18.12.2018 - 4 Ws 105/18
Voraussetzungen einer mündlichen Erörterung vor der strafrechtlichen …
- EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 63311/14
HOTI v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 36661/07
CHIM AND PRZYWIECZERSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 39775/04
REUTER c. ALLEMAGNE
- EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 48762/19
BIELINSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 31965/07
HARDY AND MAILE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 43079/02
MARCU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 25266/05
YARDIMCI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 55949/13
HERACLES S.A. GENERAL CEMENT COMPANY c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 45026/07
KEDZIOR v. POLAND
- EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 37586/06
LIEPAJNIEKS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 20.03.2009 - 12686/03
GOROU c. GRECE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 50853/06
KVASNEVSKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 36921/07
MIROSLAW GARLICKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 42994/05
FURDIK v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 15.05.2007 - 38972/06
GIUSTO, BORNACIN AND V. v. ITALY
- EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 36658/05
MURTAZALIYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 30671/08
MASIREVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 18381/05
MISHGJONI v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 48907/99
AHTINEN v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 66107/12
PISSENS ET EUROMETAAL N.V. c. BELGIQUEu000a
- EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 40378/10
FAZIA ALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 47997/06
BACKOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 42321/15
SUDITA KEITA v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 78042/16
X ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 23.05.2019 - 17257/13
SINE TSAGGARAKIS A.E.E. c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 14325/08
ZBOROVSKÝ v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 17229/04
ZIVALJEVIC v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 12853/03
IVAN ATANASOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 31675/04
CODARCEA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 69917/01
SACCOCCIA c. AUTRICHE
- EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 39559/02
STARK AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 11423/19
GUMENYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 18356/11
Statt Zwillingen nur ein Kind: Türkin wird nach Fehldiagnose entschädigt
- EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 31517/12
MIESSEN c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 15.09.2016 - 66899/14
PAPAVASILAKIS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 21788/06
BALAKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 25498/08
KRISTIANSEN AND TYVIK AS v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 21463/08
MAJCHRÁK v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 39912/09
FERENCÍKOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 34736/06
ZEBROWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 13.06.2006 - 7510/04
KONTROVA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 15.04.2021 - 55765/12
TREYD 2008, TOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 52499/11
VECBASTIKA AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 08.11.2018 - 2683/12
FREZADOU v. GREECE
- EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 43185/11
ELVAN ALKAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 58740/11
F.G. v. GREECE
- EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 38458/15
LOVRIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 60369/11
DAS UNIVERSELLE LEBEN ALLER KULTUREN WELTWEIT E.V. v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 77575/11
MARKOVICS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05
TERESHCHENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 9765/09
DE BRUIN v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 49069/11
NATALIYA MIKHAYLENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 43932/08
JOANNA SZULC v. POLAND
- EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 14991/08
DRACKA ET HLAVENKOVÁ c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
- EGMR, 04.09.2012 - 59282/11
DOLCA ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 9078/06
TARHAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 4543/09
DUKIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 26619/07
MACEDO DA COSTA c. LUXEMBOURG
- EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 9356/11
S.C. c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 32741/06
REUTER DIETRICH c. ALLEMAGNE
- EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 13665/07
POPIVCAK v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 4551/10
POSTEK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 22006/07
MIHAL v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 48155/06
JUHAS DURIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 17931/07
GARZICIC v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 50796/07
TSOURLAKIS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 36500/05
SALONTAJI-DROBNJAK v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 26664/03
K.T. v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 48345/12
KANDARAKIS v. GREECE
- EGMR, 09.06.2020 - 4831/16
GORBUNOV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 18568/12
POJATINA v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 52529/12
BRAJOVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 40425/11
AKTAS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 2788/11
DÖVME c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 64677/12
CINGÖZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 32066/06
ZENTAS LOGINAS MUZEJS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 3584/10
ARI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 31383/13
SMILJAN PERVAN v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 61332/12
SINFIELD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 58555/10
RRAPO v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 19764/07
SPYRA ET KRANCZKOWSKI c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 22.03.2011 - 10280/06
ENGELMANNOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 34200/06
KESZELI v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 18206/06
HOTTER v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 25.05.2010 - 28870/05
GECEKUSU v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 2062/03
MELNIK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 32881/04
K.H. AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR - 51865/11 (anhängig)
STUDIO 'REPORTIORI' AND KOMAKHIDZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 56751/13
BULGARIAN ORTHODOX OLD CALENDAR CHURCH AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 3619/06
CHUMAKOV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 20199/14
NESTERENKO ET GAYDUKOV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 28324/05
BALYULIN c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 49131/10
SIMKA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 36797/10
DINÇ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 14359/10
ÖNDER c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 25133/06
BEGGS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 41838/05
JARNEA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 22632/07
STOKALO AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 34644/02
T.N.B. c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 35201/06
PREVITI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 08.01.2007 - 39277/06
KNÁKAL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 34600/03
LEVANEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 11551/13
POLTORATSKYY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 3145/17
SILVA CRUZ v. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 79653/12
MUIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 23.08.2016 - 11756/11
BRLJACIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 24931/07
JAURRIETA ORTIGALA v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 23060/07
IMOBILIJE MARKETING D.O.O. AND DEBELIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 14397/04
FIRST SOFIA COMMODITIES EOOD AND PARAGH v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 50330/07
SEAL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 2629/06
I.T.C. LTD v. MALTA
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 23.05.2002 - 32555/96 |
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
- EGMR, 23.05.2002 - 32555/96
- EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
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).