Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DAWSON v. IRELAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 17 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EKMR, 16.01.1998 - 28851/95

  SPENCER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 21826/02

  They consider that, where there is a doubt about the effectiveness of a remedy, the domestic courts should be given the opportunity to develop existing rights by way of interpretation (Earl Spencer and Countess Spencer v. the United Kingdom, nos. 28851/95 and 28852/95, Commission decision of 16 January 1998, Decisions and Reports (DR) 25, p.56).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 21826/02

  In so far as Article 13 is invoked with Article 14 and even if it can be invoked as regards Article 17, the application does not involve any arguable breach of the requirements of Articles 14 and/or 17 of the Convention (Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 21826/02

  The Court's role is to determine whether the proceedings as a whole, including the manner in which the evidence and submissions were heard, were fair as required by Article 6 § 1 (for example, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, § 68).
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  HELMERS c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 21826/02

  Noting the nature of the matters at issue in that appeal, the Court does not consider that the applicants have shown that they were not given a reasonable opportunity to present their case on appeal (Ekbatani v. Sweden, judgment of 26 May 1988, Series A no. 134, § 31, and Helmers v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, § 36).

• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 3522/04

  SALMANOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has examined the applicant's complaint, bearing in mind that it essentially concerned the trial and appeal stages of the proceedings (see Dawson v. Ireland (dec.), no. 21826/02, 8 July 2004).
• EGMR, 28.06.2006 - 26499/02

  D. v. IRELAND

  However, the costs" risk does not, as a matter of principle, constitute a reason to classify a constitutional remedy as generally ineffective and, indeed, a costs" order against an unsuccessful litigant is not, of itself, considered contrary to the Convention (for example, Dawson v. Ireland (dec.), no. 21826/02, 8 July 2004).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2563/06

  SHENOYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has examined the applicant's complaint, bearing in mind that it essentially concerned the proceedings before national courts (see Dawson v. Ireland (dec.), no. 21826/02, 8 July 2004).