Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 34120/96 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2000,45742) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LAUNIKARI v. FINLAND
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 34120/96
- EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 34120/96
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84
SCHENK c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 34120/96
The Court refers, on this point, to its established case-law (see the Schenk v. Switzerland judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, § 45). - EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
MARCKX v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 34120/96
The Court notes that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention applies only to a person's existing possessions (see the Marckx v. Belgium judgment, decision of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, § 50) but that a claim or a debt can constitute a possession (see, among others, the European Commission of Human Rights, Application no. 15488/89, Dec. 27.2.95, D.R. 80-B, pp. 14-23). - EGMR, 19.12.1994 - 15153/89
VEREINIGUNG DEMOKRATISCHER SOLDATEN ÖSTERREICHS AND GUBI v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 34120/96
While the effectiveness of a remedy for the purposes of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome (see the Vereinigung Demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Gubi v. Austria judgment of 19 December 1994, Series A no. 302, § 55), the Court notes that some of the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court were in fact at least partially favourable to the applicant. - EGMR, 23.06.1994 - 16997/90
DE MOOR c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 34120/96
While a national decision without any legal justification may violate Article 6 (see the De Moor v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1994, Series A no. 292-A, § 55), the Court cannot find that the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 12 June 1996, particularly criticised by the applicant, discloses such arbitrariness or lack of justification as to raise an issue under that Article.