Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALLEN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 5591/07

  As regards social and economic policies, the Court has indicated that it will respect the legislature's assessment as to what is in the "public" or "general" interest unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation (see Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, §§ 165-166, ECHR 2006-...; and Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006-...).

  Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is in the public interest on social or economic grounds, and the Court will generally respect the legislature's policy choice unless it is "manifestly without reasonable foundation" (Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom, [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006).

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 5591/07

  Any interference with the enjoyment of a right or freedom recognised by the Convention must pursue a legitimate aim in the public interest and be proportionate to that aim (Beyeler, cited above, § 111; Broniowski, cited above, § 136; Sporrong and Lönnroth, cited above, § 69; and Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 75, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 37674/97

  C.E.M. FIREARMS LIMITED AND BRADFORD SHOOTING CENTRE AND 11 OTHERS v. THE UNITED …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 5591/07

  In this regard, the Court emphasises that, because of its direct knowledge of the society's needs and resources, the legislature's judgment as to the types of losses for which compensation will be offered will in principle be respected unless it is manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable (see C.E.M. Firearms Limited and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37674/97 and 37677/97, 26 September 2000); and Chassagnou, cited above, § 75).

 
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 5591/07

  Moreover, in order for an issue to arise under Article 14 there must be a difference in the treatment of persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations (D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007; and Burden v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 60).
• EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 25379/02

  TWIZELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 5591/07

  However, the Court does not consider that the absolute nature of the rule and the absence of discretion in its application is necessarily inconsistent with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Twizell v. the United Kingdom, no. 25379/02, § 24, 20 May 2008; and Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 71, 15 September 2009).
• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06

  AMATO GAUCI v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 5591/07

  However, the Court does not consider that the absolute nature of the rule and the absence of discretion in its application is necessarily inconsistent with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Twizell v. the United Kingdom, no. 25379/02, § 24, 20 May 2008; and Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 71, 15 September 2009).
• EKMR, 09.03.1989 - 11763/85

  BANER c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 5591/07

  The Convention organs have previously concluded that, unlike in the case of a deprivation of possessions, there is not necessarily a right to compensation where measures are adopted to control the use of property (see Banér v. Sweden, no. 11763/85, Commission decision of 9 March 1989, unreported).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 5591/07

  Limitations on the right can be justified where they pursue a legitimate aim and are not so wide ranging as to impair the very essence of the right of access to court (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93; and Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1996, § 50, Reports 1996-IV).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 5591/07

  The Court's role is to review under the Convention the decisions that those authorities have taken in the exercise of their power of appreciation (see, inter alia, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 59, Series A no. 316-B).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71

  KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 5591/07

  The Court has established in its case-law that only differences in treatment based on an identifiable characteristic, or "status", are capable of amounting to discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 (Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, § 56, Series A no. 23).
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 67021/01

  Tatar und Tatar ./. Rumänien
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

  ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

  NORRIS c. IRLANDE
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

• EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 19840/09

  SHINDLER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  That the applicant may personally have preserved a high level of contact with the United Kingdom and have detailed knowledge of that country's day-to-day problems and be affected by some of them does not render the imposition of the fifteen-year rule disproportionate: while they require close scrutiny, general measures which do not allow for discretion in their application may nonetheless be compatible with the Convention (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 68, Series A no. 98; Twizell v. the United Kingdom, no. 25379/02, § 24, 20 May 2008; Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 71, 15 September 2009; Allen and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 5591/07, § 66, 6 October 2009; Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos, cited above, § 79; and paragraph 103 above.