Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4909/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55107) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SERYAVIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of P1-1 Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4909/04
- EGMR, 04.10.2017 - 4909/04
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80
LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4909/04
The three rules are not "distinct" in the sense of being unconnected: the second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see, among other authorities, Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1986, § 106, Series A no. 102). - EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 19589/92
BRITISH-AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD c. PAYS-BAS
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4909/04
The Court does not consider it necessary to rule on this submission, because, where the right claimed is a civil one, the requirements of Article 13 are less strict than, and are absorbed by, those of Article 6 § 1 (see, among many other authorities, British-American Tobacco Company Ltd v. the Netherlands, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 331, p. 29, § 89; Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 39, 22 May 2001; Crisan v. Romania, no. 42930/98, § 32, 27 May 2003; and Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 121, 24 November 2005). - EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88
HENTRICH v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4909/04
The requirement of lawfulness, within the meaning of the Convention, demands compliance with the relevant provisions of domestic law and compatibility with the rule of law (see Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, pp. 19-20, § 42).