Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 28456/03 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,59862) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 29515/95
LARKOS c. CHYPRE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 28456/03
The Court has to consider therefore whether the subject matter of the present case falls "within the ambit" of Article 8. The Court does not find it necessary to determine the notions of "private life" or "family life" because, in any event, the applicant's complaint relates to the manner in which the alleged difference in treatment adversely affected the enjoyment of his right to respect for his "home" guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no. 29515/95, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, and Karner, cited above, § 33). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 28456/03
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 28456/03
The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
- EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97
FRETTE v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 28456/03
Furthermore, very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before the Court could regard a difference in treatment based exclusively on the ground of sex as compatible with the Convention (see Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, § 94, ECHR 1999-VI; Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, §§ 34 and 40, ECHR 2002-I; S.L. v. Austria, no. 45330/99, § 36, ECHR 2003-I; and Karner, cited above, § 37). - EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 45330/99
S.L. v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 28456/03
Furthermore, very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before the Court could regard a difference in treatment based exclusively on the ground of sex as compatible with the Convention (see Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, § 94, ECHR 1999-VI; Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, §§ 34 and 40, ECHR 2002-I; S.L. v. Austria, no. 45330/99, § 36, ECHR 2003-I; and Karner, cited above, § 37). - EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01
STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 7205/02
STANKOVA v. SLOVAKIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 28456/03
The relevance of Article 8 cannot be denied in view of the judgment of the Ljubljana Local Court ordering the applicant's eviction, which judgment was subsequently upheld by all levels of jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact that it has not yet been executed (see, mutatis mutandis, Stanková v. Slovakia, no. 7205/02, § 57, 9 October 2007). - EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
MARCKX v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 28456/03
As to the scope of the guarantee under Article 14, the Court reiterates that according to its established case-law discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations (see Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, § 33; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007; and Burden, cited above, § 60). - EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96
GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 28456/03
It is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain, no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
- EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 49323/06
OROZIM v. SLOVENIA
Nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds (see Maksimovic v. Slovenia, no. 28662/05, §§ 21-24, 22 June 2010 and Korelc v. Slovenia, no. 28456/03, §§ 59-63, 12 May 2009).