Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 28426/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,59742
EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 28426/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,59742)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07.04.2009 - 28426/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,59742)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07. April 2009 - 28426/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,59742)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,59742) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MENDEL v. SWEDEN

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

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

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 35178/97

    ANKARCRONA c. SUEDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 28426/06
    As a consequence, Article 6 is not applicable to those proceedings (see Masson and van Zon, cited above, § 51; and Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, ECHR 2000-VI).
  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 28426/06
    In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see, for example, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24).
  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

    ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 28426/06
    Where an individual's access is limited either by operation of law or in fact, the restriction will not be incompatible with Article 6 where the limitation does not impair the very essence of the right and where it pursues a legitimate aim, and there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93).
  • EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

    MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 28426/06
    In this connection, in deciding whether a right, civil or otherwise, could arguably be said to be recognised under Swedish law, the Court must have regard to the wording of the relevant legal provisions and to the way those provisions are interpreted by the domestic courts (see Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 49, Series A no. 327-A).
  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

    GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 28426/06
    In this way it embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, §§ 35-36, Series A no. 18).
  • EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

    H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 28426/06
    Having regard to its decision concerning Article 6 § 1 (see paragraphs 73-81 above), the Court takes the view that it does not have to examine the case under Article 13 as its requirements are less strict than, and are here absorbed by, those of Article 6 § 1 (see, among other authorities, Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, 21 February 1990, § 69, Series A no. 171-A; and Dragicevic v. Croatia, no. 11814/02, § 32, 9 December 2004).
  • EGMR, 27.10.1987 - 10426/83

    PUDAS c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 28426/06
    The Court reiterates that the existence of a margin of discretion on the part of the domestic authorities does not necessarily preclude the applicability of Article 6. If the subject of the court proceedings in question was a discretionary decision which interfered with the applicant's rights, the Court has held Article 6 to be applicable (see Pudas v. Sweden, 27 October 1987, § 34, Series A no. 125-A and Mats Jacobsson v. Sweden, 28 June 1990, § 32, Series A no. 180-A).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht