Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of P1-2 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EKMR, 30.06.1997 - 25091/94

  SAHiN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 40385/06

  It normally requires also that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to those same courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among other authorities, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, and Elçi and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, §§ 604 and 605, 13 November 2003).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 40385/06

  It normally requires also that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to those same courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among other authorities, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, and Elçi and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, §§ 604 and 605, 13 November 2003).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71

  KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 40385/06

  Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees, inter alia, a right of access to educational institutions existing at a given time (see Belgian Linguistics Case, cited above, p. 28, § 4 and Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 23, pp. 25-26, § 52).
• EGMR, 25.02.1982 - 7511/76

  CAMPBELL ET COSANS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 40385/06

  Provided that there is no injury to the substance of the right, these limitations are permitted by implication since the right of access "by its very nature calls for regulation by the State" (Belgian Linguistics Case, cited above, p. 28, § 5 and Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1982, § 41, Series A no. 48).

• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 51500/08

  ÇAM c. TURQUIE

  Il énonce en outre qu'il ne peut y avoir de justification objective et raisonnable en l'absence de but légitime ou lorsqu'il n'y a pas de rapport raisonnable de proportionnalité entre les moyens employés et le but visé (Sejdic et Finci c. Bosnie-Herzégovine [GC], nos 27996/06 et 34836/06, § 42, CEDH 2009, et Ali c. Royaume-Uni, no 40385/06, § 53, 11 janvier 2011).
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 37991/12

  MEMLIKA c. GRÈCE

  En outre, pareille limitation ne se concilie avec ledit article que s'il existe un rapport raisonnable de proportionnalité entre les moyens employés et le but visé (Leyla Sahin, précité, § 154, et Ali c. Royaume-Uni, no 40385/06, § 53, 11 janvier 2011).
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 37222/04

  ALTINAY c. TURQUIE

  The Court reiterates that discrimination consists in treating differently, without any objective and reasonable justification, persons in reasonably similar situations, and that a difference in treatment is devoid of any "objective and reasonable justification" if it does not pursue a "legitimate aim" or if there is no "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved" (see, among many other authorities, Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 42, ECHR 2009, and Ali v. United Kingdom, no. 40385/06, § 53, 11 January 2011).