Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 37331/97 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2002,36036) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LANDVREUGD v. THE NETHERLANDS
Art. 8, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3 MRK
No violation of P4-2 No separate issue under Art. 8 (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 21.10.1998 - 37331/97
- EGMR, 06.06.2000 - 37331/97
- EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 37331/97
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95
ROTARU v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 37331/97
The Court reiterates that, according to its settled case-law, the expression "in accordance with the law" not only requires that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V). - EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79
MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 37331/97
The Court has stressed the importance of this concept in the following terms (see the Malone v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, p. 32, § 67, Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 56, ECHR 2000-II, reiterated in Rotaru v. Romania, cited above, § 55):. - EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 12963/87
MARGARETA AND ROGER ANDERSSON v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 37331/97
However, a law which confers a discretion is not in itself inconsistent with this requirement, provided that the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise are indicated with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see, among other authorities, the Margareta and Roger Andersson judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 226-A, p. 25, § 75). - EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 37331/97
Although such persons were thus put on notice that they might be made subject to a restriction on their freedom of movement, this cannot in our opinion be considered a proper substitute for public access to the official text of the instructions themselves (see the Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 33, §§ 87 and 93).