Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 35757/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,67227) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
WATKINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78
Eckle ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 35757/06
A decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, inter alia, Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 30, § 66; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; and Siliadin, cited above, § 62). - EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88
CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 35757/06
In the great majority of cases where this Court had found violations of Article 8 of the Convention in relation to prisoners" correspondence, it had considered the finding of a violation in itself to constitute just satisfaction for the applicants concerned and had held that no damages should be payable (Silver v. the United Kingdom (cited above) § 10; Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80 § 141; McCallum v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 183 § 37; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233 § 70; and William Faulkner v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 4 June 2002, no. 37471/97, § 18). - EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 35757/06
In the great majority of cases where this Court had found violations of Article 8 of the Convention in relation to prisoners" correspondence, it had considered the finding of a violation in itself to constitute just satisfaction for the applicants concerned and had held that no damages should be payable (Silver v. the United Kingdom (cited above) § 10; Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80 § 141; McCallum v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 183 § 37; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233 § 70; and William Faulkner v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 4 June 2002, no. 37471/97, § 18).