Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00, 63468/00   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,68516
EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00, 63468/00 (https://dejure.org/2006,68516)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.11.2006 - 63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00, 63468/00 (https://dejure.org/2006,68516)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. November 2006 - 63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00, 63468/00 (https://dejure.org/2006,68516)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,68516) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    HOBBS, RICHARD, WALSH AND GEEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 4, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 39, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Inadmissible (one of the complaints) Violation of Art. 14+P1-1 No violation of Art. 14+P1-1 Struck out of the list (finding of a friendly settlement) (one of the complaints) Adjourned (one complaint) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - claim ...

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

    STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 63684/00
    65731/01 and 65900/01, § 43, ECHR 2005).

    A difference of treatment is, however, discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification; in other words, if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 51, ECHR 2006; Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, §§ 14-26, ECHR 2002-IV).

  • EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

    STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 63684/00
    The Court is not satisfied that Mr Hobbs" legal costs were actually incurred, and thus makes no award to him under this head (see, for example, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 194, ECHR 2005).
  • EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

    WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 63684/00
    It marks out the temporal limits of supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible and it is not open to the Court to set the rule aside (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
     
  • EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 36677/97

    S.A. DANGEVILLE c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 63684/00
    They cited in their support three cases where the Court had awarded compensation for the wrongful levying of taxes or refusal of a tax allowance (S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, ECHR 2002-III; Darby v. Sweden, judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187; P.M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 6638/03, 19 July 2005) and also the case of Willis, cited above.
  • EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

    WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 63684/00
    A difference of treatment is, however, discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification; in other words, if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 51, ECHR 2006; Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, §§ 14-26, ECHR 2002-IV).
  • EGMR, 19.07.2005 - 6638/03

    P.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 63684/00
    They cited in their support three cases where the Court had awarded compensation for the wrongful levying of taxes or refusal of a tax allowance (S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, ECHR 2002-III; Darby v. Sweden, judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187; P.M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 6638/03, 19 July 2005) and also the case of Willis, cited above.
  • EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88

    KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 63684/00
    Lord Hoffmann could rely only on a single Court judgment, Van Raalte v. Netherlands, but this was, in the applicants" submission, a far from satisfactory authority, since there was no explanation as to why damages were not awarded or why the Court was departing from the approach it had adopted less than three years before, in Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B.
  • EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 11581/85

    DARBY v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 63684/00
    They cited in their support three cases where the Court had awarded compensation for the wrongful levying of taxes or refusal of a tax allowance (S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, ECHR 2002-III; Darby v. Sweden, judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187; P.M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 6638/03, 19 July 2005) and also the case of Willis, cited above.
  • EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 63679/00

    SZULC v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, judgment of 26 March 2007.

    The Court has previously examined cases raising issues similar to those in the present case and found a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Hobbs, Richard, Walsh and Geen v. the United Kingdom, nos. 63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, judgment of 26 March 2007, §§ 53-54).

  • EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 68621/01

    SINCLAIR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, 26 March 2007.

    63684/00, 63475/00, 63484/00 and 63468/00, 26 March 2007, Mr Sinclair had suffered a violation of his rights.

  • EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

    VALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

    It can - and in fact did - only make recommendations in that regard (see paragraphs 58, 59 and 61 above and, mutatis mutandis, Hobbs v. the United Kingdom, no. 63684/00, 18 June 2002; Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 40, ECHR 2008-...; and A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 150, 16 December 2010).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht