Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 07.10.2004 - 47574/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,55478) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CORUH v. TURKEY
Art. 6, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 07.10.2004 - 47574/99
- EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 47574/99
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96
GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2004 - 47574/99
The Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, among many others, Garcia Ruiz v. Spain, [GC], no. 30544/96, §§ 28-29, ECHR 1999-I). - EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96
WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2004 - 47574/99
(a) The Court recalls that the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined according to the principles laid down in the Court's case-law, namely according to a subjective test, that is on the basis of the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case, and also according to an objective test, that is ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (see Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII). - EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71
Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2004 - 47574/99
In principle, it does not suffice for an individual applicant to claim that the mere existence of a law violates his rights under the Convention; it is necessary that the law should have been applied to his detriment (see Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, pp. 17-18, § 33). - EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83
HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2004 - 47574/99
What is decisive is whether this fear can be held to be objectively justified (see, mutatis mutandis, Hauschildt v. Denmark, judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, § 48). - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2004 - 47574/99
(b) Regarding the applicant's complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court points out that according to the its case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).