Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 1550/09 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,53215) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
HEATHER MOOR & EDGECOMB LTD. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 6, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96
GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 1550/09
Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I). - EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86
ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 1550/09
The Court would observe, moreover, that contrary to the applicant's criticisms about the scope of judicial review in this case, in its judgment the Court of Appeal did in fact consider on their merits each of the grounds raised by HME without ever having to decline jurisdiction in replying to them (see Zumtobel v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 32, Series A no. 268-A). - EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74
SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 1550/09
He then referred to the criteria of accessibility and precision set down in Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, and continued:. - EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 58675/00
MARTINIE c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 1550/09
It notes from the rules governing the complaints procedure that it is open to the parties to a complaint to seek a hearing, and that the Ombudsman considers any such request in the light of the Convention (see Jussila, cited above, § 47, and, mutatis mutandis, Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 44, 12 April 2006). - EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01
JUSSILA v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 1550/09
He considered the Court's judgment in Jussila v. Finland ([GC], no. 73053/01, ECHR 2006-XIII and found a number of similarities with the facts of the present case: the purpose of the oral hearing was cross-examination, which was reasonably found to be unnecessary; the demands of efficiency and economy referred to in Jussila resembled the objective of the complaints scheme in the present case.