Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1995,13144
EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89 (https://dejure.org/1995,13144)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.03.1995 - 15318/89 (https://dejure.org/1995,13144)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. März 1995 - 15318/89 (https://dejure.org/1995,13144)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1995,13144) 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

    LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

    Art. 1, Art. 19, Art. 34, Art. 56, Art. 57, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 6, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 6 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 7, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 7 Abs. 2, Art. 33, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
    Question de procédure rejetée (locus standi du gouvernement requérant) Exception préliminaire rejetée (abus de procédure) Exception préliminaire rejetée (ratione loci) Exception préliminaire jointe au fond (ratione temporis) (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    LOIZIDOU v. TURKEY (PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS)

    Art. 1, Art. 19, Art. 34, Art. 56, Art. 57, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 6, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 6 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 7, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 7 Abs. 2, Art. 33, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
    Question of procedure rejected (locus standi of the applicant Government) Preliminary objection rejected (abuse of process) Preliminary objection rejected (ratione loci) Preliminary objection joined to merits (ratione temporis) (englisch)

  • Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte PDF

    (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 ... (139)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

    Jens Söring

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89
    According to its established case-law, for example, the Court has held that the extradition or expulsion of a person by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3 (art. 3), and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, para. 91; the Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28, paras. 69 and 70, and the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, para. 103).

    According to its established case-law, for example, the Court has held that the extradition or expulsion of a person by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3 (art. 3), and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, para. 91; the Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28, paras. 69 and 70; and the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, para. 103).

  • EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

    CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89
    According to its established case-law, for example, the Court has held that the extradition or expulsion of a person by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3 (art. 3), and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, para. 91; the Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28, paras. 69 and 70, and the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, para. 103).

    According to its established case-law, for example, the Court has held that the extradition or expulsion of a person by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3 (art. 3), and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, para. 91; the Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28, paras. 69 and 70; and the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, para. 103).

  • EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

    VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89
    According to its established case-law, for example, the Court has held that the extradition or expulsion of a person by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3 (art. 3), and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, para. 91; the Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28, paras. 69 and 70, and the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, para. 103).

    According to its established case-law, for example, the Court has held that the extradition or expulsion of a person by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3 (art. 3), and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, para. 91; the Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28, paras. 69 and 70; and the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, para. 103).

     
  • EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14556/89

    PAPAMICHALOPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89
    She referred in this respect to the Court's Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece judgment of 24 June 1993 where it was held that a de facto expropriation of land amounted to a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (Series A no. 260-B, pp. 75-76, paras. 45-46).
  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

    JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89
    To determine whether Contracting Parties may impose restrictions on their acceptance of the competence of the Commission and Court under Articles 25 and 46 (art. 25, art. 46), the Court will seek to ascertain the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of these provisions in their context and in the light of their object and purpose (see, inter alia, the Johnston and Others v. Ireland judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, p. 24, para. 51, and Article 31 para. 1 of the Vienna Convention of 23 May 1969 on the Law of Treaties).
  • EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

    ARTICO c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89
    In addition, the object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings requires that its provisions be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see, inter alia, the above-mentioned Soering judgment, p. 34, para. 87, and the Artico v. Italy judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 16, para. 33).
  • EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89
    That the Convention is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions is firmly rooted in the Court's case-law (see, inter alia, the Tyrer v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, pp. 15-16, para. 31).
  • EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

    BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89
    It also recalls the finding in its Belilos v. Switzerland judgment of 29 April 1988, after having struck down an interpretative declaration on the grounds that it did not conform to Article 64 (art. 64), that Switzerland was still bound by the Convention notwithstanding the invalidity of the declaration (Series A no. 132, p. 28, para. 60).
  • EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 27765/09

    Italiens Flüchtlingspolitik: Rechte auch auf hoher See

    In its first judgment in the case of Loizidou (preliminary objections), the Court ruled that bearing in mind the object and purpose of the Convention, the responsibility of a Contracting Party may also arise when as a consequence of military action - whether lawful or unlawful - it exercises effective control of an area outside its national territory (see Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], 23 March 1995, § 62, Series A no. 310), which is however ruled out when, as in Bankovic, only an instantaneous extra-territorial act is at issue, since the wording of Article 1 does not accommodate such an approach to "jurisdiction" (see the decision cited above, § 75).
  • EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

    Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland

    In such cases, the interest of international cooperation would be outweighed by the Convention's role as a "constitutional instrument of European public order" in the field of human rights (see Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), judgment of 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310, pp.

    In another context, that of reservations, the Court has raised the possibility of inequality between Contracting States and reiterated that this would "run counter to the aim, as expressed in the Preamble to the Convention, to achieve greater unity in the maintenance and further realisation of human rights" (Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), judgment of 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310, p. 28, § 77).

  • EGMR, 12.12.2001 - 52207/99

    V. und B. B., Ž. S., M. S., D. J. und D. S. gegen Belgien, Dänemark, …

    Bezüglich der Behauptung der Beschwerdeführer, dass den Bürgern der BRJ kein Rechtsmittel nach Maßgabe der Konvention zustehen würde, erinnern die Regierungen drittens daran, dass ein Ergebnis, dass die Türkei im Sinne der Konvention für die Angelegenheiten in Nordzypern nicht verantwortlich sei, den Bewohnern dieses Gebiets die Vergünstigung der in der Konvention anerkannten Rechte abgesprochen hätte, auf die sie ansonsten einen Anspruch gehabt hätten (Urteil Loizidou ./. Türkei vom 23. März 1995 ( vorgängige prozessuale Einreden) , Serie A Nr. 310, Urteil Loizidou ./. Türkei vom 18. Dezember 1996 ( Hauptsache ), Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, Nr. 26, und Zypern ./. Türkei [GC], Nr. 25781/94, EGMR 2001).
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