Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 10.06.2003 - 49606/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,51294) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MOND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 6 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (10)
- EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 35373/97
A. c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2003 - 49606/99
This discloses some similarities with the case of A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35373/97, ECHR 2002-X) which concerned the absolute privilege in defamation attaching to statements made by Members of Parliament in carrying out their functions in Parliament. - EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84
TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2003 - 49606/99
Where there is a serious and genuine dispute as to the lawfulness of such an interference, going either to the very existence or the scope of the asserted civil right, Article 6 § 1 entitles the individual "to have this question of domestic law determined by a tribunal" (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, § 81; see also Tre Traktörer v. Sweden, judgment of 27 July 1989, Series A no. 159, p. 18, § 40). - EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2003 - 49606/99
It established this as an inherent aspect of the safeguards enshrined in Article 6, referring to the principles of the rule of law and the avoidance of arbitrary power which underlie much of the Convention (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 13-18, §§ 28-36).
- EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2003 - 49606/99
Where there is a serious and genuine dispute as to the lawfulness of such an interference, going either to the very existence or the scope of the asserted civil right, Article 6 § 1 entitles the individual "to have this question of domestic law determined by a tribunal" (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, § 81; see also Tre Traktörer v. Sweden, judgment of 27 July 1989, Series A no. 159, p. 18, § 40). - EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91
TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2003 - 49606/99
It may be subject to legitimate restrictions, as, for example, statutory limitation periods, security for costs orders, regulations concerning minors and persons of unsound mind (see Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1996, Reports 1996-IV, pp. 1502-3, §§ 51-52; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, pp. 80-81, §§ 62-67; the Golder judgment, cited above, p. 19, § 39). - EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78
ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2003 - 49606/99
Where the individual's access is limited either by operation of law or in fact, the Court will examine whether the limitation imposed impaired the essence of the right and, in particular, whether it pursued a legitimate aim and there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, pp. 24-25, § 57). - EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80
LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2003 - 49606/99
The Court recalls its constant case-law to the effect that "Article 6 § 1 extends only to contestations (disputes) over (civil) "rights and obligations" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law; it does not itself guarantee any particular content for (civil) "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States" (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 46, § 81; Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 70, § 192; the Holy Monasteries v. Greece judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301, p. 37, § 80). - EGMR, 23.10.1985 - 8848/80
BENTHEM v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2003 - 49606/99
It will however apply to disputes of a "genuine and serious nature" concerning the actual existence of the right as well as to the scope or manner in which it is exercised (Benthem v. the Netherlands judgment of 23 October 1985, Series A no. 97, p. 15, § 32). - EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75
LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2003 - 49606/99
Article 6 § 1 "may... be relied on by anyone who considers that an interference with the exercise of one of his (civil) rights is unlawful and complains that he has not had the possibility of submitting that claim to a tribunal meeting the requirements of Article 6 § 1" (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, § 44). - EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87
RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2003 - 49606/99
The Court recalls its constant case-law to the effect that "Article 6 § 1 extends only to contestations (disputes) over (civil) "rights and obligations" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law; it does not itself guarantee any particular content for (civil) "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States" (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 46, § 81; Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 70, § 192; the Holy Monasteries v. Greece judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301, p. 37, § 80).