Volltextveröffentlichungen (11)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SELMANI AND OTHERS v. \

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3-b - No significant disadvantage);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SELMANI AND OTHERS v. \

  [DEU] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-b) No significant disadvantage;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);Violation of ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SELMANI AND OTHERS v. \

  [MAC] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3-b - No significant disadvantage);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of ...

 
• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SELMANI AND OTHERS v. \

  [CZE] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-b) No significant disadvantage;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);Violation of ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SELMANI AND OTHERS v. \

  [ALB] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-b) No significant disadvantage;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);Violation of ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SELMANI AND OTHERS v. \

  [MAC] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-b) No significant disadvantage;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);Violation of ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SELMANI AND OTHERS v. \

  [HRV] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-b) No significant disadvantage;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);Violation of ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SELMANI AND OTHERS v. \

  [SLV] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-b) No significant disadvantage;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);Violation of ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SELMANI AND OTHERS v. \

  [ICE] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-b) No significant disadvantage;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);Violation of ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SELMANI AND OTHERS v. \

  [POL] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-b) No significant disadvantage;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);Violation of ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SELMANI AND OTHERS v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 67259/14
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 67259/14

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 67259/14

  Not only do the media have the task of imparting such information and ideas, but the public also has a right to receive them (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 65, Series A no. 30).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 67259/14

  Although they must not overstep certain bounds, their duty is nevertheless to impart - in a manner consistent with their obligations and responsibilities - information and ideas on all matters of public interest (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-III; De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24 February 1997, § 37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I; and Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

  ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 67259/14

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 64, ECHR 2004-IV).

 
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94

  WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 67259/14

  The Court reiterates that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see, among other authorities, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 140, ECHR 2012; Korbely v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, §§ 72-73, ECHR 2008; and Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 54, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

  T.W. v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 67259/14

  The Court reiterates that when a remedy has been pursued, the use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999; Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V; Jasar v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 69908/01, 11 April 2006; and Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, 15 November 2005).
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 67259/14

  The Court reiterates that the expression "prescribed by law" in the second paragraph of Article 10 not only requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V, and Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 67259/14

  Furthermore, it considers that it would be unduly formalistic to require the applicants to avail themselves of a remedy which even the Constitutional Court did not oblige them to use (see D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, §§ 117 and 118, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 31475/05

  KENEDI v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 67259/14

  In such circumstances, the Court considers that the right to report from the Parliament gallery, which fell within the applicants" freedom of expression, is a "civil right" for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see similarly Shapovalov v. Ukraine, no. 45835/05, § 49, 31 July 2012; RTBF v. Belgium, no. 50084/06, § 65, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Kenedi v. Hungary, no. 31475/05, § 33, 26 May 2009).
• EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

  CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 67259/14

  The Court reiterates that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see, among other authorities, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 140, ECHR 2012; Korbely v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, §§ 72-73, ECHR 2008; and Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 54, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95

  CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 67259/14

  Even assuming that that declaration can be seen as an acknowledgment, whether explicit or in substance, by a State authority, of an alleged breach of Article 10 of the Convention, the Court considers that it does not provide any redress as required by its case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-VIII).