Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HIRST c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 2)

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3, Art. 14, Art. 10, Art. 34 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 Remboursement partiel frais et dépens (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 2)

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3, Art. 14, Art. 10, Art. 34 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 partial award (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Besprechungen u.ä.

• verfassungsblog.de (Kurzaufsatz mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

  Großbritannien lehnt sich gegen EGMR auf

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 74025/01
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 74025/01
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01
• EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 74025/01
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 74025/01

Papierfundstellen

• NL 2004, 73

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• 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, 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, 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, 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, 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-...).