Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MCLEAN AND COLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 60041/08

  GREENS ET M.T. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 12626/13

  60041/08 and 60054/08, ECHR 2010 (extracts).

  60041/08 and 60054/08, §§ 68-71, 111-115, 118 and 120-122, ECHR 2010 (extracts), legislative amendment of section 3 of the 1983 Act is required in order to prevent further violations of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 arising in the context of general elections.

• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 12626/13

  The Court recalls that the word "legislature" in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 does not necessarily mean the national parliament: the word has to be interpreted in the light of the constitutional structure of the State in question (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, § 53, Series A no. 113; and Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 40, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 31981/96

  HILBE contre le LIECHTENSTEIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 12626/13

  35790/97 and 38438/97, Commission decision of 14 September 1998, DR 94, p. 102; Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI; and Borghi v. Italy (dec.), no. 54767/00, ECHR 2002-V (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 57420/00

  YOUNGER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 12626/13

  Where no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the time-limit expires six months after the date of the acts or measures complained of, or after the date of knowledge of that act or its effect or prejudice on the applicant (see Younger v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57420/00, ECHR 2003-I; and Toner v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 8195/08, § 27, 15 February 2011).
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 56550/00

  MÓLKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 12626/13

  More recently, adopting the same approach, the Court has found Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to be inapplicable to local and mayoral elections in Russia; regional elections in France; elections to the Provincial Council in Italy; and elections to municipal and district councils and regional assemblies in Poland (see, respectively, Cherepkov v. Russia (dec.), no. 51501/99, ECHR 2000-I; Malarde v. France (dec.), no. 46813/99, 5 September 2000; Santoro v. Italy, no. 36681/97, 16 January 2003; and Mólka v. Poland (dec.), no. 56550/00, ECHR 2006-IV).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 51501/99

  CHEREPKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 12626/13

  More recently, adopting the same approach, the Court has found Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to be inapplicable to local and mayoral elections in Russia; regional elections in France; elections to the Provincial Council in Italy; and elections to municipal and district councils and regional assemblies in Poland (see, respectively, Cherepkov v. Russia (dec.), no. 51501/99, ECHR 2000-I; Malarde v. France (dec.), no. 46813/99, 5 September 2000; Santoro v. Italy, no. 36681/97, 16 January 2003; and Mólka v. Poland (dec.), no. 56550/00, ECHR 2006-IV).
• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 34586/10

  TUCKA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 12626/13

  Pursuant to that Article, the Court may only deal with a matter where it has been introduced within six months from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see generally Tucka (No. 1) v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34586/10, 18 January 2011).
• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 8195/08

  TONER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 12626/13

  Where no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the time-limit expires six months after the date of the acts or measures complained of, or after the date of knowledge of that act or its effect or prejudice on the applicant (see Younger v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57420/00, ECHR 2003-I; and Toner v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 8195/08, § 27, 15 February 2011).
• EKMR, 17.05.1985 - 10650/83

  CLERFAYT, LEGROS et ALII c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 12626/13

  Thus, highlighting the absence of any legislative power and the nature of the delegated powers exercised by them under the ultimate control of Parliament, the former Commission held that local authorities in Northern Ireland; municipal councils in Belgium; and metropolitan county councils in England could not be considered as part of the "legislature" (see, respectively, X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 5155/71, Commission decision of 12 July 1976, DR 6, p. 13; Clerfayt, Legros and Others v. Belgium, no. 10650/83, Commission decision of 17 May 1985, DR 42, p. 212; and Booth-Clibborn and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 11391/85, Commission decision of 5 July 1985, DR 43, p. 236).
• EKMR, 05.07.1985 - 11391/85

  BOOTH-CLIBBORN et autres c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 12626/13

  Thus, highlighting the absence of any legislative power and the nature of the delegated powers exercised by them under the ultimate control of Parliament, the former Commission held that local authorities in Northern Ireland; municipal councils in Belgium; and metropolitan county councils in England could not be considered as part of the "legislature" (see, respectively, X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 5155/71, Commission decision of 12 July 1976, DR 6, p. 13; Clerfayt, Legros and Others v. Belgium, no. 10650/83, Commission decision of 17 May 1985, DR 42, p. 212; and Booth-Clibborn and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 11391/85, Commission decision of 5 July 1985, DR 43, p. 236).
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 54767/00

  BORGHI c. ITALIE
• EKMR, 03.10.1975 - 7096/75

  X. c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EKMR, 12.07.1976 - 5155/71

  X. c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 05.09.2000 - 46813/99

  MALARDE contre la FRANCE
• EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 26633/95

  BADER v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 14.09.1998 - 35790/97

  CASTELLI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

• EGMR, 12.08.2014 - 47784/09

  FIRTH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  12626/13 and 2522/12, 11 June 2013.

  12626/13 and 2522/12, §§ 5-12, 11 June 2013).

• EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 48818/17

  CUMHURIYET HALK PARTISI v. TURKEY

  12626/13 and 2522/13, 11 June 2013), namely that "... there was nothing in the nature of the referendum at issue to lead the Court to reach a different conclusion than those so far reached", the applicant party suggested the possibility of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 being applied to referendums of a different nature, such as the one in Turkey.

  12626/13 and 2522/13, 11 June 2013; and Moohan and Gillon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos.

• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 75147/17

  Katalonien-Streit: Puigdemonts Grundrechte wurden nicht verletzt

  Ainsi, la Cour n'a pas exclu qu'une procédure démocratique décrite comme un referendum pour un État membre puisse potentiellement rentrer dans le champ d'application de l'article 3 du Protocole no 1 (McLean and Cole c. Royaume-Uni, (déc), no 12626/13 et 2522/12, § 33, 11 juin 2013).

 
• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 50432/17

  HALKIN KURTULUS PARTISI (HKP) v. TÜRKIYE

  12626/13 and 2522/12, §§ 32-33, 11 June 2013; and Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, cited above, § 40).
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 68958/17

  MYSLIHAKA AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  In other similar applications the Court has concluded that applicants must lodge complaints with it about their inability to vote in specific elections within six months from the dates of the elections (see McLean and Cole v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 12626/13, §§ 25 and 37, 11 June 2013, and Dunn v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 22962/15

  MOOHAN ET GILLON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Selon le Gouvernement, celle-ci a dit, en résumé, que sur la base du sens ordinaire des mots dans lesquels il était libellé, l'article 3 du Protocole no 1 ne s'appliquerait pas aux référendums et elle aurait ajouté que cette interprétation se retrouvait dans une ligne de jurisprudence constante qui aurait commencé avec la décision X. c. Royaume-Uni ((déc.), no 7096/75, 3 octobre 1975) et aurait pris fin avec la décision McLean et Cole c. Royaume-Uni ((déc.), nos 12626/13 et 2522/12, 11 juin 2013, paragraphes 10-14 ci-dessus).
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 47784/09

  FIRTH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  12626/13 and 2522/12, 11 June 2013.
• EGMR, 30.06.2016 - 44473/14

  MILLBANK AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  12626/13 and 2522/12, 11 June 2013; and Firth and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos.