Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ESPOSITO c. ITALIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ESPOSITO v. ITALY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 34971/02

  Rejection of a complaint as manifestly ill-founded amounts to a conclusion that there is not even a prima facie case against the respondent State (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 18, Series A no. 32).
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 34971/02

  The Court refers to its case-law to the effect that in prohibiting discrimination, Article 14 affords protection against different treatment, without an objective and reasonable justification, of persons in similar situations (see Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 34971/02

  Referring to Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom (28 May 1985, Series A no. 93) and Fayed v. the United Kingdom (21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B), the Government further pointed out that the Court had found that certain legislative provisions that protected ordinary staff members of administrative authorities were compatible with the Convention.

 
• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 34791/97

  KHALFAOUI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 34971/02

  Furthermore, they will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if they do not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, among many other authorities, Khalfaoui v. France, no. 34791/97, §§ 35-36, ECHR 1999-IX, and Papon v. France, no. 54210/00, § 90, ECHR 2002-VII; see also the recapitulation of the relevant principles in Fayed, cited above, § 65).
• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 35373/97

  A. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 34971/02

  They requested the Court to apply, by analogy, the principles established in relation to parliamentary immunity in A. v. the United Kingdom (no. 35373/97, ECHR 2002-X) and Cordova v. Italy (nos. 1 and 2) (nos. 40877/98 and 45649/99 respectively, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 40877/98

  CORDOVA c. ITALIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 34971/02

  They requested the Court to apply, by analogy, the principles established in relation to parliamentary immunity in A. v. the United Kingdom (no. 35373/97, ECHR 2002-X) and Cordova v. Italy (nos. 1 and 2) (nos. 40877/98 and 45649/99 respectively, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 34971/02

  This right extends only to disputes ("contestations") over "civil rights and obligations" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see, among other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 81, Series A no. 98, and Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 36, Series A no. 172).
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 34971/02

  Referring to Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom (28 May 1985, Series A no. 93) and Fayed v. the United Kingdom (21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B), the Government further pointed out that the Court had found that certain legislative provisions that protected ordinary staff members of administrative authorities were compatible with the Convention.
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 34971/02

  The Court reiterates its case-law to the effect that Article 13 cannot reasonably be interpreted so as to require a remedy in domestic law in respect of any supposed grievance under the Convention that an individual may have, no matter how unmeritorious his complaint may be: the grievance must be an arguable one in terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 24 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 34971/02

  This right extends only to disputes ("contestations") over "civil rights and obligations" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see, among other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 81, Series A no. 98, and Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 36, Series A no. 172).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94

  BELLET c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

• EGMR - 51011/20 (anhängig)

  NIKOLOV v. BULGARIA

  If Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention are applicable, was the dismissal of the applicant's complaint against the Deputy Chief Prosecutor with respect to that statement in breach of the positive obligations flowing from those provisions (see, mutatis mutandis, Budinova and Chaprazov, cited above, §§ 87-95) or deprive him of an effective remedy in respect of the statement, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, was it justified for the Supreme Administrative Court to hold that it had been impermissible to conduct proceedings against Deputy Chief Prosecutor under the Protection from Discrimination Act 2003 owing to his functional immunity (see, mutatis mutandis, Esposito v. Italy (dec.), no. 34971/02, 5 April 2007)?.