Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MOE AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  Art. 6, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 34 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

  FISCHER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 30966/96

  It does not transpire that the latter court's omission to deal with the point referred to by the applicants could be viewed as a failure to comply with the duty to provide reasons, or, should that be the case, as an unjustified limitation on their right of access to a court (see the Fischer v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, p. 18, § 34; cf. the Ruiz Torija v. Spain judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-A, pp. 12-13, §§ 29-30).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 30966/96

  Against this background, the Court considers that, after 1990, the interference with the applicants" right to respect for private life and home had been remedied to such an extent that they could no longer claim to be "victims" for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention of a violation of Article 8. Therefore, in so far as their complaint refers to the periods examined by the Norwegian courts, it must be deemed manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and rejected under Article 35 § 4 (see the Eckle v. Germany judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, pp. 30-32, §§ 66-69; S. v. Germany, application no. 10232/83, decision on admissibility of 16 December 1983, DR 35, p. 213; Stefan Einarsson v. Iceland, application no. 22596/93, decision on admissibility of 5 April 1995).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 30966/96

  In the latter context the Supreme Court examined the applicants' submission that, in the light of Article 8 of the Convention, as interpreted and applied by the European Court in the Lopez Ostra v. Spain judgment of 9 December 1994 (Series A no. 303-C), the provisions on payment for inconvenience should also apply to non-pecuniary damage suffered in the past.

• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 31612/09

  PAVLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The present case continues, on its face, a long journey of environment-related adjudication under Article 8 that has been steadily developed by this Court for almost 30 years (see, for example, López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C; Khatun and 180 Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38387/97, 1 July 1998; Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; Moe and Others v. Norway (dec.), no. 30966/96, 14 December 1999; Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, ECHR 2005-IV; Bacila v. Romania, no. 19234/04, 30 March 2010; Apanasewicz v. Poland, no. 6854/07, 3 May 2011; Jugheli and Others v. Georgia, no. 38342/05, 13 July 2017; Dubetska and Others v. Ukraine, no. 30499/03, 10 February 2011; and Cordella and Others v. Italy, nos.