Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,33228
EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01 (https://dejure.org/2005,33228)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.10.2005 - 74025/01 (https://dejure.org/2005,33228)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. Oktober 2005 - 74025/01 (https://dejure.org/2005,33228)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,33228) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    HIRST c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 2)

    Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 3, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation de P1-3 Aucune question distincte au regard de l'art. 14 Aucune question distincte au regard de l'art. 10 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Frais et dépens (procédure nationale) - demande rejetée Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 2)

    Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 3, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of P1-3 No separate issue under Art. 14 No separate issue under Art. 10 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Besprechungen u.ä.

  • verfassungsblog.de (Aufsatz mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

    Demokratieprinzip versus Rechtsstaatsprinzip? UK strebt nach "democratic override” des EGMR

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 ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

  • EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

    MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01
    However, having regard to the preparatory work to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and the interpretation of the provision in the context of the Convention as a whole, the Court has established that it guarantees individual rights, including the right to vote and to stand for election (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, pp. 22-23, §§ 46-51).

    To make this determination, the Court will rely on the legitimate aim pursued by the measure of exclusion and on the proportionality of the latter (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, p. 23, § 52).

    The Court must therefore satisfy itself that limitations do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness (see, firstly, Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, p. 23, § 52, and, more recently, Py v. France, no. 66289/01, §§ 45-47, ECHR 2005-I).

  • EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 46295/99

    STAFFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01
    In a case such as the present one, where Contracting States have adopted a number of different ways of addressing the question of the right of convicted prisoners to vote, the Court must confine itself to determining whether the restriction affecting all convicted prisoners in custody exceeds any acceptable margin of appreciation, leaving it to the legislature to decide on the choice of means for securing the rights guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, the cases concerning procedures governing the continued detention of life prisoners, where Court case-law and domestic legislation have evolved progressively: Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 190-A; Singh v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1996, Reports 1996-I; and Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, ECHR 2002-IV).

    It has been part of the Court's reasoning in some cases in recent years to emphasise its role in developing human rights and the necessity to maintain a dynamic and evolutive approach in its interpretation of the Convention and its Protocols in order to make reforms or improvements possible (see, for example, Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, § 68, ECHR 2002-IV, and Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 74, ECHR 2002-VI).

  • EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 31981/96

    HILBE contre le LIECHTENSTEIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01
    For example, the imposition of a minimum age may be envisaged with a view to ensuring the maturity of those participating in the electoral process or, in some circumstances, eligibility may be geared to criteria, such as residence, to identify those with sufficiently continuous or close links to, or a stake in, the country concerned (see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI, and Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 56, ECHR 2004-X).

    In the light of such considerations, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 cannot be considered to preclude restrictions on the right to vote that are of a general character, provided that they are not arbitrary and do not affect "the free expression of the opinion of the people", examples being conditions concerning age, nationality, or residence (see, for example, Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI, and Py, cited above).

     
  • EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95

    Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01
    It has been part of the Court's reasoning in some cases in recent years to emphasise its role in developing human rights and the necessity to maintain a dynamic and evolutive approach in its interpretation of the Convention and its Protocols in order to make reforms or improvements possible (see, for example, Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, § 68, ECHR 2002-IV, and Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 74, ECHR 2002-VI).
  • EKMR, 18.09.1961 - 1028/61

    A.D.Q. c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01
    This is also why the Commission in its early case-law did not consider that the Article granted individual rights (see X v. Germany, no. 530/59, decision of 4 January 1960, Collection 2, and X v. Belgium, no. 1028/61, decision of 18 September 1961, Collection 6, p. 78).
  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

    GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01
    For example, prisoners may not be ill-treated, subjected to inhuman or degrading punishment or conditions contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI, and Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II); they continue to enjoy the right to respect for family life (Ploski v. Poland, no. 26761/95, 12 November 2002, and X v. the United Kingdom, no. 9054/80, Commission decision of 8 October 1982, DR 30, p. 113); the right to freedom of expression (Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 126-45, ECHR 2003-XII, and T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission's report of 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84); the right to practise their religion (Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, §§ 167-71, ECHR 2003-V); the right of effective access to a lawyer or to a court for the purposes of Article 6 (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, and Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18); the right to respect for correspondence (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61); and the right to marry (Hamer v. the United Kingdom, no. 7114/75, Commission's report of 13 December 1979, DR 24, p. 5, and Draper v. the United Kingdom, no. 8186/78, Commission's report of 10 July 1980, DR 24, p. 72).
  • EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

    CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01
    For example, prisoners may not be ill-treated, subjected to inhuman or degrading punishment or conditions contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI, and Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II); they continue to enjoy the right to respect for family life (Ploski v. Poland, no. 26761/95, 12 November 2002, and X v. the United Kingdom, no. 9054/80, Commission decision of 8 October 1982, DR 30, p. 113); the right to freedom of expression (Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 126-45, ECHR 2003-XII, and T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission's report of 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84); the right to practise their religion (Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, §§ 167-71, ECHR 2003-V); the right of effective access to a lawyer or to a court for the purposes of Article 6 (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, and Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18); the right to respect for correspondence (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61); and the right to marry (Hamer v. the United Kingdom, no. 7114/75, Commission's report of 13 December 1979, DR 24, p. 5, and Draper v. the United Kingdom, no. 8186/78, Commission's report of 10 July 1980, DR 24, p. 72).
  • EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

    ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01
    It is primarily for the State concerned to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the means to be used in its domestic legal order in order to discharge its obligation under Article 46 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 202, ECHR 2004-II, and Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210, ECHR 2005-IV).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

    SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01
    For example, prisoners may not be ill-treated, subjected to inhuman or degrading punishment or conditions contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI, and Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II); they continue to enjoy the right to respect for family life (Ploski v. Poland, no. 26761/95, 12 November 2002, and X v. the United Kingdom, no. 9054/80, Commission decision of 8 October 1982, DR 30, p. 113); the right to freedom of expression (Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 126-45, ECHR 2003-XII, and T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission's report of 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84); the right to practise their religion (Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, §§ 167-71, ECHR 2003-V); the right of effective access to a lawyer or to a court for the purposes of Article 6 (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, and Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18); the right to respect for correspondence (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61); and the right to marry (Hamer v. the United Kingdom, no. 7114/75, Commission's report of 13 December 1979, DR 24, p. 5, and Draper v. the United Kingdom, no. 8186/78, Commission's report of 10 July 1980, DR 24, p. 72).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01
    The Court reaffirms that the margin in this area is wide (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, p. 23, § 52, and, more recently, Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 63, ECHR 1999-I; see also Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV, and Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II).
  • EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 46726/99

    PODKOLZINA c. LETTONIE

  • EGMR, 25.10.1990 - 11787/85

    THYNNE, WILSON AND GUNNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 17707/02

    MELNITCHENKO c. UKRAINE

  • EKMR, 06.03.1982 - 8231/78

    X. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  • EKMR, 13.10.1977 - 7114/75

    HAMER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EKMR, 08.10.1982 - 9054/80

    A. v. ROYAUME-UNI

  • BVerfG, 29.01.2019 - 2 BvC 62/14

    Wahlrechtsausschlüsse für Betreute in allen Angelegenheiten und wegen …

    Allerdings müsse eine Beschränkung des Wahlrechts einem legitimen Ziel dienen und dem Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit entsprechen (vgl. EGMR, Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, Urteil vom 2. März 1987, Nr. 9267/81, § 52; EGMR , Hirst v. The United Kingdom , Urteil vom 6. Oktober 2005, Nr. 74025/01, § 62).

    Werde allen Strafgefangenen unterschiedslos das Wahlrecht entzogen, stelle dies eine allgemeine, automatische und wahllose Einschränkung des Wahlrechts dar, die den Gestaltungsspielraum der Vertragsstaaten überschreite und daher mit Art. 3 EMRKZusProt nicht vereinbar sei (vgl. EGMR , Hirst v. The United Kingdom , Urteil vom 6. Oktober 2005, Nr. 74025/01, § 82; s. auch EGMR, Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, Urteil vom 4. Juli 2013, Nr. 11157/04 und 15162/05, §§ 93 ff.).

  • EGMR, 06.01.2011 - 34932/04

    Rolandas Paksas

    Elle a ainsi examiné au fond un certain nombre de requêtes dans lesquelles étaient en cause des dispositions légales qui n'avaient pas donné lieu à des décisions individuelles visant les requérants mais étaient génératrices d'une situation continue, et qui avaient été introduites plus de six mois après l'entrée en vigueur de ces dispositions (voir, par exemple, les arrêts Hirst c. Royaume-Uni (no 2) [GC], du 6 octobre 2005, no 74025/01, CEDH 2005-IX, et Sejdic et Finci c. Bosnie-Herzégovine [GC], du 22 décembre 2009, nos 27996/06 et 34836/06, CEDH 2009-..).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.04.2006 - C-145/04

    GENERALANWALT ANTONIO TIZZANO TRÄGT SEINE SCHLUSSANTRÄGE IN ZWEI RECHTSSACHEN …

    19 - EGMR, Urteil vom 2. März 1987, Mathieu-Mohin und Clerfayt/Belgien, Serie A Nr. 11, S. 22 f., § 51, und EGMR, Urteil vom 6. Oktober 2005, Hirst/Vereinigtes Königreich (Nr. 2), Nr. 74025/01, § 59. Nichtamtliche Übersetzung.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 74025/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2004,25339
EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 74025/01 (https://dejure.org/2004,25339)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30.03.2004 - 74025/01 (https://dejure.org/2004,25339)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30. März 2004 - 74025/01 (https://dejure.org/2004,25339)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,25339) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Besprechungen u.ä.

  • verfassungsblog.de (Kurzaufsatz mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

    Großbritannien lehnt sich gegen EGMR auf

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 ...Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

    Jens Söring

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 74025/01
    The Court has had occasion in many cases to underline the importance, in the interpretation and application of Convention rights, of "democratic values" (for example, Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, § 87), including the crucial role played by elected representatives in defending the interests of the electorate (for example, Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, ECHR 2001-I, § 36; see also A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35373/97, ECHR 2002-X, concerning the legitimate measures of protection which attach to the performance of parliamentary functions).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 74025/01
    The Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere, but it is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with; it has to satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, p. 23, § 52; and more recently, Matthews v. United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 63, ECHR 1999-I; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV, and Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II).
  • EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

    MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 74025/01
    The Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere, but it is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with; it has to satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, p. 23, § 52; and more recently, Matthews v. United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 63, ECHR 1999-I; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV, and Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II).
     
  • EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 46726/99

    PODKOLZINA c. LETTONIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 74025/01
    The Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere, but it is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with; it has to satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, p. 23, § 52; and more recently, Matthews v. United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 63, ECHR 1999-I; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV, and Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II).
  • EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 38812/97

    POLTORATSKIY v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 74025/01
    The mere fact of imprisonment has not been found sufficient to justify the imposition of blanket restrictions on the right of a prisoner to correspond (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A, no. 61), to have effective access to a lawyer or to court (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, Series A, no. 80; Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, Series A, no. 18), to have access to his family (X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9054/80, Commission decision of 8 October 1982, DR 30, p. 113), to practise his religion (Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, ECHR 2003-..., §§ 167-171), to exercise freedom of expression (T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission report, 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84) or to marry (Hamer v. the United Kingdom, no. 7114/75, Commission report, 13 December 1979, DR 24, p. 5; Draper v. the United Kingdom, no. 8186/78, Commission report, 10 July 1980, DR 24, p. 72).
  • EKMR, 06.03.1982 - 8231/78

    X. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 74025/01
    The mere fact of imprisonment has not been found sufficient to justify the imposition of blanket restrictions on the right of a prisoner to correspond (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A, no. 61), to have effective access to a lawyer or to court (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, Series A, no. 80; Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, Series A, no. 18), to have access to his family (X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9054/80, Commission decision of 8 October 1982, DR 30, p. 113), to practise his religion (Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, ECHR 2003-..., §§ 167-171), to exercise freedom of expression (T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission report, 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84) or to marry (Hamer v. the United Kingdom, no. 7114/75, Commission report, 13 December 1979, DR 24, p. 5; Draper v. the United Kingdom, no. 8186/78, Commission report, 10 July 1980, DR 24, p. 72).
  • EKMR, 13.10.1977 - 7114/75

    HAMER c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 74025/01
    The mere fact of imprisonment has not been found sufficient to justify the imposition of blanket restrictions on the right of a prisoner to correspond (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A, no. 61), to have effective access to a lawyer or to court (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, Series A, no. 80; Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, Series A, no. 18), to have access to his family (X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9054/80, Commission decision of 8 October 1982, DR 30, p. 113), to practise his religion (Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, ECHR 2003-..., §§ 167-171), to exercise freedom of expression (T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission report, 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84) or to marry (Hamer v. the United Kingdom, no. 7114/75, Commission report, 13 December 1979, DR 24, p. 5; Draper v. the United Kingdom, no. 8186/78, Commission report, 10 July 1980, DR 24, p. 72).
  • EKMR, 08.10.1982 - 9054/80

    A. v. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 74025/01
    The mere fact of imprisonment has not been found sufficient to justify the imposition of blanket restrictions on the right of a prisoner to correspond (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A, no. 61), to have effective access to a lawyer or to court (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, Series A, no. 80; Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, Series A, no. 18), to have access to his family (X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9054/80, Commission decision of 8 October 1982, DR 30, p. 113), to practise his religion (Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, ECHR 2003-..., §§ 167-171), to exercise freedom of expression (T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission report, 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84) or to marry (Hamer v. the United Kingdom, no. 7114/75, Commission report, 13 December 1979, DR 24, p. 5; Draper v. the United Kingdom, no. 8186/78, Commission report, 10 July 1980, DR 24, p. 72).
  • EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 20579/04

    W. B. gegen Deutschland

    Jede Beschränkung dieser anderen Rechte muss gerechtfertigt sein, wobei sich eine solche Rechtfertigung durchaus aus den Sicherheitserwägungen ergeben kann, die unweigerlich mit den Umständen der Inhaftierung verbunden sind, insbesondere die Verhütung von Straftaten und die Aufrechterhaltung der Ordnung (siehe sinngemäß Hirst ./. Vereinigtes Königreich (Nr. 2) [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 74025/01, Rdnr. 69, ECHR 2005-...).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 74025/01, 60041/08, 47784/09, 51987/08, 44473/14   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,40922
EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 74025/01, 60041/08, 47784/09, 51987/08, 44473/14 (https://dejure.org/2018,40922)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.12.2018 - 74025/01, 60041/08, 47784/09, 51987/08, 44473/14 (https://dejure.org/2018,40922)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. Dezember 2018 - 74025/01, 60041/08, 47784/09, 51987/08, 44473/14 (https://dejure.org/2018,40922)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,40922) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    HIRST AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 2) AND 4 OTHER CASES

    Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    HIRST CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI (N° 2) ET 4 AUTRES AFFAIRES

    Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

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 ... (13)

  • EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 21881/20

    COMMUNAUTÉ GENEVOISE D'ACTION SYNDICALE (CGAS) c. SUISSE

    La Cour estime d'emblée qu'une interdiction générale d'un certain comportement est une mesure radicale qui exige une justification solide et un contrôle particulièrement sérieux par les tribunaux autorisés à opérer une pesée des intérêts pertinents en jeu (voir, par exemple, Lacatus c. Suisse, no 14065/15, § 101, 19 janvier 2021, Hirst c. Royaume-Uni (no 2) [GC], no 74025/01, § 82, CEDH 2005-IX, et Schlumpf c. Suisse, no 29002/06, § 115, 8 janvier 2009).

    Par ailleurs, dans sa jurisprudence, la Cour insiste de plus en plus sur la qualité du débat parlementaire, laquelle est prise en compte dans l'évaluation de la proportionnalité d'une mesure générale (voir notamment Parrillo c. Italie [GC], no 46470/11, § 188, CEDH 2015, Animal Defenders International c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 48876/08, § 114, CEDH 2013 (extraits), Hirst c. Royaume-Uni (no 2) [GC], no 74025/01, § 79, CEDH 2005-IX).

  • EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 10226/03

    Yumak und Sadak ./. Türkei

    En ce qui concerne l'interprétation générale de l'article 3 du Protocole no 1, 1a Cour a énoncé les grands principes ci-dessous dans sa jurisprudence (voir, parmi d'autres, Mathieu-Mohin et Clerfayt, précité, pp. 22-23, §§ 46-51, Ždanoka, précité, § 115, Podkolzina c. Lettonie, no 46726/99, § 33, CEDH 2002-II, et Hirst c. Royaume-Uni (no 2) [GC], no 74025/01, § 61, CEDH 2005-IX):.
  • EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 14065/15

    LACATUS c. SUISSE

    La Cour estime qu'une interdiction générale d'un certain comportement, comme celle de l'espèce, est une mesure radicale qui exige une justification solide et un contrôle particulièrement sérieux par les tribunaux autorisés à opérer une pesée des intérêts pertinents en jeu (voir, par exemple, Hirst c. Royaume-Uni (no 2) [GC], no 74025/01, § 82, CEDH 2005-IX, et Schlumpf c. Suisse, no 29002/06, § 115, 8 janvier 2009).
     
  • EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 75147/17

    Katalonien-Streit: Puigdemonts Grundrechte wurden nicht verletzt

    Certes, la Cour est consciente de la diversité existante dans les différents systèmes électoraux, appartenant à chaque État membre d'organiser les procédures selon leur propre vision démocratique (voir, à titre d'exemple, Scoppola c. Italie (no 3) [GC], no 126/05, § 83, 22 mai 2012 et Hirst c. Royaume-Uni (no 2) [GC], no 74025/01, § 61, ECHR 2005-IX).
  • EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 28881/07

    ORAN c. TURQUIE

    Ils jouissent en la matière d'une large marge d'appréciation, mais il appartient à la Cour de statuer en dernier ressort sur l'observation des exigences du Protocole no 1 ; il lui faut s'assurer que lesdites conditions ne réduisent pas les droits dont il s'agit au point de les atteindre dans leur substance même et de les priver de leur effectivité, qu'elles poursuivent un but légitime et que les moyens employés ne se révèlent pas disproportionnés (Matthews c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 24833/94, § 63, CEDH 1999-I, Labita c. Italie [GC], no 26772/95, § 201, CEDH 2000-IV, Aziz c. Chypre, no 69949/01, § 25, CEDH 2004-V, Hirst c. Royaume-Uni (no 2) [GC], no 74025/01, § 62, CEDH 2005-IX, Yumak et Sadak, précité, § 109, et Tanase c. Moldova [GC], no 7/08, § 161, CEDH 2010).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2021 - 34591/19

    TOPLAK AND MRAK v. SLOVENIA

    The relevant principles concerning the right to vote have been set out in Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, §§ 56-62, ECHR 2005-IX.
  • EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 48555/10

    RIZA ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

    Au XXIe siècle, dans un État démocratique, la présomption doit jouer en faveur de l'octroi de ce droit au plus grand nombre (Hirst c. Royaume-Uni (no 2) [GC], no 74025/01, § 59, CEDH 2005-IX).
  • EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 10547/07

    PARTIJA

    Il existe de nombreuses manières d'organiser et de faire fonctionner les systèmes électoraux et une multitude de différences au sein de l'Europe notamment dans l'évolution historique, la diversité culturelle et la pensée politique, qu'il incombe à chaque État contractant d'incorporer dans sa propre vision de la démocratie (voir Hirst c. Royaume-Uni (no 2) [GC], no 74025/01, § 61, CEDH 2005-...).
  • EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 58302/10

    G.K. c. BELGIQUE

    Il existe de nombreuses manières d'organiser et de faire fonctionner les systèmes électoraux et une multitude de différences au sein de l'Europe (Hirst c. Royaume-Uni (no 2) [GC], no 74025/01, § 61, CEDH 2005-IX).
  • EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 22962/15

    MOOHAN ET GILLON c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Dès lors qu'il existe de nombreuses manières d'organiser et de faire fonctionner les systèmes électoraux et une multitude de différences au sein de l'Europe notamment dans l'évolution historique, la diversité culturelle et la pensée politique qu'il incombe à chaque État contractant d'incorporer dans sa propre vision de la démocratie (voir, par exemple, Scoppola c. Italie (no 3) [GC], no 126/05, § 83, 22 mai 2012 et Hirst c. Royaume-Uni (no 2) [GC], no 74025/01, § 61, CEDH 2005-IX), la Cour n'exclut pas la possibilité qu'un processus démocratique décrit comme un « référendum'par un État contractant puisse potentiellement relever de l'article 3 du Protocole no 1 (McLean et Cole, décision précitée, § 33).
  • EGMR, 23.03.2006 - 77955/01

    CAMPAGNANO v. ITALY

  • EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 47299/15

    ÇETIN c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 29450/20

    HUREZANU c. ROUMANIE

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

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 74025/01, 60041/08, 47784/09, 51987/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2015,38213
EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 74025/01, 60041/08, 47784/09, 51987/08 (https://dejure.org/2015,38213)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09.12.2015 - 74025/01, 60041/08, 47784/09, 51987/08 (https://dejure.org/2015,38213)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09. Dezember 2015 - 74025/01, 60041/08, 47784/09, 51987/08 (https://dejure.org/2015,38213)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,38213) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

Verfahrensgang

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

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 74025/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2003,39652
EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 74025/01 (https://dejure.org/2003,39652)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.07.2003 - 74025/01 (https://dejure.org/2003,39652)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. Juli 2003 - 74025/01 (https://dejure.org/2003,39652)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,39652) 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