Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 35763/97 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AL-ADSANI c. ROYAUME-UNI
Art. 1, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 30 MRK
Non-violation de l'art. 3 Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AL-ADSANI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(englisch)
- Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 01.03.2000 - 35763/97
- EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 35763/97
Wird zitiert von ... (16) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88
Jens Söring
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 35763/97
The Court reiterates that the engagement undertaken by a Contracting State under Article 1 of the Convention is confined to "securing" ("reconnaître" in the French text) the listed rights and freedoms to persons within its own "jurisdiction" (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 33-34, § 86). - EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 35763/97
In Golder v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 13-18, §§ 28-36) the Court held that the procedural guarantees laid down in Article 6 concerning fairness, publicity and promptness would be meaningless in the absence of any protection for the pre-condition for the enjoyment of those guarantees, namely, access to a court. - EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90
FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 35763/97
However, it would not be consistent with the rule of law in a democratic society or with the basic principle underlying Article 6 § 1 - namely that civil claims must be capable of being submitted to a judge for adjudication - if, for example, a State could, without restraint or control by the Convention enforcement bodies, remove from the jurisdiction of the courts a whole range of civil claims or confer immunities from civil liability on large groups or categories of persons (see Fayed v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, pp. 49-50, § 65). - EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95
Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 35763/97
It extends only to contestations (disputes) over "civil rights and obligations" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 87, ECHR 2001-V, and the authorities cited therein). - EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 31253/96
McELHINNEY v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 35763/97
However, I would prefer to adopt as my main reasoning for finding a violation of Article 6 in this case the same approach that I adopt in McElhinney v. Ireland ([GC], no. 31253/96, ECHR 2001-XI) and Fogarty v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 37112/97, ECHR 2001-XI), which can be summed up as follows.
- BGH, 28.01.2021 - 3 StR 564/19
Zur Immunität eines staatlichen Hoheitsträgers bei Kriegsverbrechen
Soweit etwa der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte im Rahmen von Beschwerden, die sich gegen die Erfolglosigkeit von Schadensersatzklagen wegen Folter richteten, die Gewährung von Immunität ratione materiae für dienstliche Handlungen staatlicher Hoheitsträger in Zivilverfahren wegen Foltervorwürfen hingenommen hat, hat er zum einen ausdrücklich bedacht, dass es nicht um die strafrechtliche Verantwortung für Folter, sondern um die Staatenimmunität in einem zivilrechtlichen Schadensersatzverfahren gehe (EGMR, Urteil vom 21. November 2001 - 35763/97 - Al Adsani / Vereinigtes Königreich - ECHR 2001-XI, 79 Rn. 61 (EuGRZ 2002, 403)). - EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 46221/99
Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (Freiheit der Person; rechtmäßige …
It should so far as possible be interpreted in harmony with other rules of public international law of which it forms part (see, mutatis mutandis , Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001-XI; and Loizidou v. Turkey , judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2231, § 43). - BVerfG, 15.02.2006 - 2 BvR 1476/03
Keine Schadensersatzpflicht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland gegenüber Geschädigten …
Nach geltendem Völkerrecht kann ein Staat Befreiung von der Gerichtsbarkeit eines anderen Staates beanspruchen, wenn und soweit es um die Beurteilung seines hoheitlichen Verhaltens - so genannter acta iure imperii - geht (vgl. BVerfGE 16, 27 ; dazu auch EGMR, Nr. 35763/97, Urteil vom 21. November 2001, EuGRZ 2002, S. 403 Ziff. 66 - Al-Adsani).
- EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 61498/08
AL-SAADOON AND MUFDHI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
It should so far as possible be interpreted in harmony with other rules of public international law of which it forms part (see, mutatis mutandis, Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001-XI, and Loizidou v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2231, § 43).The Convention should be interpreted as far as possible in harmony with other principles of international law of which it forms part (see Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001-XI; Bankovic, cited above, §§ 55-57).
- EGMR, 12.03.2003 - 46221/99
Freiheit der Person (rechtmäßige Freiheitsentziehung; effektives …
It should so far as possible be interpreted in harmony with other rules of public international law of which it forms part (see, mutatis mutandis, Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001-XI; and Loizidou v. Turkey , 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2231, § 43). - EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51357/07
NAÏT-LIMAN v. SWITZERLAND
Referring to the judgment delivered by the Court in the case of Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI), it further considered that there had been no violation of the applicant's right of access to a court.According to the Court's case-law, the prohibition of torture has achieved the status of a peremptory norm in international law (see Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 61, ECHR 2001-XI).
The present case must be distinguished from Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom, [GC] no. 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI, where the torture was allegedly carried out by the Kuwaiti authorities and the Court in that case decided that "[i]n these circumstances the application of the provisions of the [State Immunity] 1978 Act to uphold Kuwait's claim to immunity cannot be said to have amounted to an unjustified restriction on the applicant's access to a court".[68] By contrast, in the present case the Swiss Federal Supreme Court held that it was not necessary to examine the issue of immunity from jurisdiction, in that it was dismissing the appeal on the grounds that there did not exist a sufficient connection between the facts of the case and Switzerland.
- EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03
MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
Et il n'y a aucun doute qu'il faut résoudre l'antinomie en donnant la priorité aux normes de rang plus élevé, comme cela a été souligné dans l'opinion dissidente exprimée par les juges de la minorité (huit contre neuf) jointe à l'arrêt Al-Adsani [Al-Adsani c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 35763/97, CEDH 2001-XI], en excluant dans ce genre d'hypothèse que l'Etat puisse jouir de l'immunité de poursuites devant la juridiction étrangère.Toutefois, dans des affaires concernant l'immunité de poursuite accordée aux Etats (Al-Adsani c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 35763/97, CEDH 2001-XI, et Fogarty c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 37112/97, CEDH 2001-XI) et à des organisations internationales (Waite et Kennedy c. Allemagne [GC], no 26083/99, CEDH 1999-I), la Cour a vu dans ces immunités des barrières procédurales qui demandaient une justification et non des limitations à un droit matériel prévues par la législation interne.
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 24.10.2017 - C-353/16
Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Bot hat eine Person, die in der Vergangenheit in …
Vgl. auch EGMR, 21. November 2001, Al-Adsani/Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2001:1121JUD003576397, §§ 61 und 115 ff.).28 Wobei zu berücksichtigen ist, dass diese Frage in den europäischen Rechtsordnungen und in der Lehre keineswegs einheitlich beantwortet wird, wie vom Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte in seinen Urteilen vom 21. November 2001, Al-Adsani/Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2001:1121JUD003576397, §§ 61 f.), und vom 21. Juni 2016, Nait-Liman/Schweiz (CE:ECHR:2016:0621JUD005135707, §§ 115 ff.), ausgeführt.
- EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 36925/07
GÜZELYURTLU AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS AND TURKEY
When examining the merits of the complaint under Article 2, the Court noted that the death had taken place in Cyprus and that, as a rule, the obligation to ensure an effective investigation applied to Cyprus alone (ibid., § 243, referring mutatis mutandis to Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 38, ECHR 2001-XI, in relation to Article 3).See, inter alia, Golder, cited above, § 35, and Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, §§ 55-56, 21 November 2001, where the Court referred to this provision.
- EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07
Massaker von Katyn
Third, the majority's position contradicts a principle well established in the Court's case-law, namely that the Convention shall not be interpreted in splendid isolation, but is to be interpreted taking into account the relevant international law (see Nada, cited above, § 169; Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001-XI; and Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27021/08, §§ 76 and 105, ECHR 2011). - EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 51357/07
NAIT-LIMAN c. SUISSE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.01.2020 - C-641/18
Generalanwalt Szpunar schlägt dem Gerichtshof vor, zu entscheiden, dass die beim …
- EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 40020/03
M. AND OTHERS v. ITALY AND BULGARIA
- EGMR, 11.12.2006 - 41092/06
S. M. gegen Deutschland
- EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 35373/97
A. c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 4320/11
B. c. BELGIQUE
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 31253/96 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
McELHINNEY v. IRELAND
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 30 MRK
No violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
McELHINNEY c. IRLANDE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 30 MRK
Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 (französisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 09.02.2000 - 31253/96
- EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 31253/96
Wird zitiert von ... (7) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90
FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 31253/96
Toutefois, par exemple, qu'un Etat puisse sans réserve ou sans contrôle des organes de la Convention soustraire à la compétence des tribunaux toute une série d'actions civiles ou exonérer de toute responsabilité civile de larges groupes ou catégories de personnes ne se concilierait pas avec la prééminence du droit dans une société démocratique ni avec le principe fondamental qui sous-tend l'article 6 § 1 - à savoir que les revendications civiles doivent pouvoir être portées devant un juge (arrêt Fayed c. Royaume-Uni du 21 septembre 1994, série A n° 294-B, § 65). - EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 31253/96
L'article 6 § 1 garantit à chacun le droit à ce qu'un tribunal connaisse de toute contestation relative à ses droits et obligations de caractère civil (arrêt Golder c. Royaume-Uni du 21 février 1975, série A n° 18, pp. 13-18, §§ 28-36).
- EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 35763/97
AL-ADSANI c. ROYAUME-UNI
However, I would prefer to adopt as my main reasoning for finding a violation of Article 6 in this case the same approach that I adopt in McElhinney v. Ireland ([GC], no. 31253/96, ECHR 2001-XI) and Fogarty v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 37112/97, ECHR 2001-XI), which can be summed up as follows. - EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 62539/00
JURISIC AND COLLEGIUM MEHRERAU v. AUSTRIA
It has been the Court's consistent case-law that Article 6 applies only to disputes over "rights" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see, amongst many other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, Z and Others, at § 81 and the authorities cited therein together with McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, § 23, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).In these cases Article 6 was held applicable (see Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI; Fogarty v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 37112/97, ECHR 2001-XI and McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).
- EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 10523/02
COORPLAN-JENNI GMBH AND HASCIC v. AUSTRIA
It has been the Court's consistent case-law that Article 6 applies only to disputes over "rights" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see, amongst many other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, Z and Others, at § 81 and the authorities cited therein together with McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, § 23, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).In these cases Article 6 was held applicable (see Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI; Fogarty v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 37112/97, ECHR 2001-XI and McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).
- EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 35720/04
VRIONI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA AND ITALY
The Court refers to its case-law on the exercise of territorial and extraterritorial jurisdiction by a Contracting State (see, for example, Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, judgment of 26 June 1992, Series A no. 240; Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, ECHR 2001-XII; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII; McElhinney v. Ireland and the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 31253/96, 9 February 2000).As the right of access to a court is an inherent part of the fair-trial guarantee in that Article, so some restrictions on access must likewise be regarded as inherent, an example being those limitations generally accepted by the community of nations as part of the doctrine of State immunity (see McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, § 37, ECHR 2001-XI; Manoilescu and Dobrescu, (dec.), cited above, § 80, ECHR 2005-VI; and, Treska, cited above).
- EGMR, 09.05.2006 - 60255/00
PEREIRA HENRIQUES c. LUXEMBOURG
Ses garanties ne valent que pour les droits que l'on peut dire, au moins de manière défendable, reconnus en droit interne (voir James et autres c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 21 février 1986, série A no 98, Z et autres, précité, § 81, et les précédents cités dans cette affaire, ainsi que McElhinney c. Irlande [GC], no 31253/96, § 23, CEDH 2001-XI (extraits)). - EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 26664/03
K.T. v. NORWAY
Its guarantees extend only to rights which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, and Z and Others, § 81, and the authorities cited therein, together with McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, § 23, 21 November 2001; and Fogarty v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 37112/97, § 117, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)). - EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 27183/08
MALBASIC v. SLOVENIA
As to the question whether the time-limit applied to the applicant's case excessively restricted his right to access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see the general principles stated in McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, § 34, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts), and Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 63, ECHR 1999-V), the Court reiterates that according to the Kocevje Local Court's and the Ljubljana Higher Court's opinions, the applicant should have pursued his claim against the alleged legal successor of company S. within one year from the publication of the striking-off, in order to secure the enforcement of his claim against that successor (see paragraphs 12 and 15 above).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 01.03.2000 - 35763/97 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AL-ADSANI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
Admissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 01.03.2000 - 35763/97
- EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 35763/97