Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LAM AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 41671/98

  With reference to the principles set out by the Court in its López Ostra v. Spain (Series A no. 303-C) and Guerra and Others v. Italy (Reports 1998-1) judgments, the applicants assert that the local authority allowed an unauthorised industrial activity to be carried out and then failed to prevent the emission of environmental pollution attendant on that activity even though it had been put on notice of its effect on their and their neighbours" health.
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 41671/98

  These basic principles have recently been re-affirmed by the Court in its Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 10 May 2001 ([GC], application no. 29392/95, to be published in ECHR 2001).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

  JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 41671/98

  The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, inter alia, the Vernillo v. France judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, pp. 11-12, § 27, and the Johnston and Others v. Ireland judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, p. 22, § 45).

 
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 41671/98

  The Court would further observe that it is in fact common in the Convention countries that judges in higher courts deal with similar or related cases in turn (see the Gillow v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, p. 28, § 73).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 41671/98

  This right to a court "extends only to "contestations" (disputes) over (civil) "rights and obligations" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law; Article 6 § 1 does not in itself guarantee any particular content for (civil) "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States" (see, inter alia, the James and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, pp. 46-47, § 81, and the Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p.16, § 36).
• EGMR, 23.10.1985 - 8848/80

  BENTHEM v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 41671/98

  Article 6 will however apply to disputes of a "genuine and serious nature" concerning the actual existence of a right as well as to the scope or manner in which it is exercised (see the Benthem v. the Netherlands judgment of 23 October 1985, Series A no. 97, p. 15, § 32).
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 28945/95

  T.P. ET K.M. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 41671/98

  However, it would not be consistent with the rule of law in a democratic society or with the basic principle underlying Article 6 § 1 - namely that civil claims must be capable of being submitted to a judge for adjudication - if, for example, a State could, without restraint or control by the Convention enforcement bodies, remove from the jurisdiction of the courts a whole range of civil claims or confer immunities from civil liability on large groups or categories of persons (see the Fayed v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A, no. 294, pp. 49-50, § 65; and, most recently, the above-mentioned Z. and Others judgment; and the T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom judgment of 10 May 2001 ([GC], application no. 28945/95, to be published in ECHR 2001).