Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANDRONICOU ET CONSTANTINOU c. CHYPRE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 26, Art. 27, Art. 27 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée (abus de procédure) Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Non-violation de l'art. 2 Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANDRONICOU AND CONSTANTINOU v. CYPRUS

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 26, Art. 27, Art. 27 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (abuse of process) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of Art. 2 No violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 05.07.1995 - 25052/94
• EGMR, 09.10.1997 - 25052/94, 86/1996/705/897

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

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.1997 - 25052/94

  Having regard to the principles established by the Court in its McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995 (Series A no. 324) they contended that the authorities had failed to minimise to the greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force in the planning and control phases and that the force administered by the officers in the implementation of the rescue operation was not in the circumstances strictly proportionate to the aim of arresting Lefteris Andronicou and rescuing Elsie Constantinou.

  In the case of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324) the Court has laid down several principles for assessing the lawfulness of the actions of the authorities under Article 2 of the Convention when they have recourse to the use of lethal force.

  The recent decision of the Court in the case of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324) puts, to my understanding, the duty of the State to protect the life of the individual on a higher pedestal than hitherto.

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.1997 - 25052/94

  All that the Convention requires is that an individual should enjoy his effective right of access to the courts in conditions not at variance with Article 6 § 1 (see the Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, pp. 14-15, § 26).

  This approach reflects the fact that the Commission is par excellence the fact-finding body for violations of the Convention (see, inter alia, the Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32).

• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.1997 - 25052/94

  As in other areas of the Convention, the rule adopted in Article 26 must be given effect without undue formalism and must be applied with a degree of flexibility excusing non-exhaustion wherever domestic proceedings would be a fruitless exercise (see the Cardot v. France judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200; and the Castells v. Spain judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.1997 - 25052/94

  As in other areas of the Convention, the rule adopted in Article 26 must be given effect without undue formalism and must be applied with a degree of flexibility excusing non-exhaustion wherever domestic proceedings would be a fruitless exercise (see the Cardot v. France judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200; and the Castells v. Spain judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236).

• EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 26320/95

  LAAKSO v. FINLAND

  At least part of these must be considered effective and adequate for the purposes of Article 26 in (Art. 26) respect of this aspect of the complaint (cf. Eur. Court HR, A. v. France judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-B, p. 48, para. 32; No. 25052/94, Dec. 5.7.95, D.R. 82-A, p. 102 at pp. 114-115).