Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HELLUM v. NORWAY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 34 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2000 - 36437/97

  In this connection, it is recalled that it is not normally within the province of the European Court to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for these courts to assess the evidence before them (see, for instance, the Klaas v. Germany judgment of 23 September 1993, Series A no. 269, p. 17, § 29).
• EGMR, 20.04.1993 - 14327/88

  SIBSON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2000 - 36437/97

  No material has been adduced before the Court which could call into question the High Court's finding to the effect that the co-operation problems on Ward 10 were the decisive reason for the transfer and was, under the applicable law, a sufficient reason for taking the measure, falling within the employer's contractual freedom (see, mutatis mutandis, the Sibson v. the United Kingdom judgment of 20 April 1993, Series A no. 258-A, p. 14, § 29).

• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 49438/99

  STAYKOV v. BULGARIA

  Although these acknowledgement and redress are most often the result of the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies, they need not always be (see, by way of example, Schlader v. Austria (dec.), no. 30193/96, 7 March 2000; Hellum v. Norway (dec.), no. 36437/97, 5 September 2000; Tímár v. Hungary (dec.), no. 36186/97, 3 May 2001; Fiecek v. Poland (dec.), no. 27913/95, 23 October 2001; Lacko and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 47237/99, 2 July 2002; Ekimdjiev, cited above; Kaplan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 56566/00, 28 September 2004; and Koç and Tambas v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46947/99, 24 February 2005).