Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 10.02.2004 - 18905/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,47198) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CARNDUFF v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 6 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87
EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2004 - 18905/02
The Court further recalls that it is not its function to substitute its own assessment of the facts and evidence for that of the national courts or to act as a fourth instance appeal (see, among many other examples, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, § 34). - EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78
ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2004 - 18905/02
Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not 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, Series A no. 93, p. 24, § 57; Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 44, ECHR 2001 - VIII). - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2004 - 18905/02
The Court recalls that 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). - EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95
ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2004 - 18905/02
The need to keep secret police methods of investigation of crime has been explicitly recognised to be one such important public interest (see Rowe and Davies v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 61, ECHR 2000-II; Jasper v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27052/95, § 52, 16 February 2000; Fitt v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29777/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-II).