Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 35557/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,48794
EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 35557/03 (https://dejure.org/2005,48794)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15.03.2005 - 35557/03 (https://dejure.org/2005,48794)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15. März 2005 - 35557/03 (https://dejure.org/2005,48794)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,48794) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84

    MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 35557/03
    In this latter respect he referred to Müller and Others v. Switzerland (judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133) and the domestic decision of R. v. Perrin ([2002] EWCA Crim 747).

    Criminal law provisions on obscenity fall within this category (see Müller and Others v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, § 29).

  • EGMR, 28.08.2001 - 37983/97

    OWEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 35557/03
    Nevertheless, it is obvious that the right cannot and should not prevent the accused's silence, in situations which clearly call from an explanation from him, from being taken into account in assessing the persuasiveness of the evidence adduced by the prosecution (see Owen v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 37983/97, with further references to John Murray v. the United Kingdom (Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I) and Condron v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 2 May 2000, no 35718/97, ECHR 2000-V)).
  • EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

    TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 35557/03
    Further, a law that confers a discretion, such as the discretion conferred on a jury in determining whether matter is obscene, blasphemous or defamatory, is not in itself inconsistent with the requirements of the Convention, provided that the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise are indicated with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see, for instance, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, pp. 71-72, § 37; § 31, Wingrove v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, § 40).
  • EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

    KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 35557/03
    The provision also, and more generally, includes a requirement that an offence should be clearly described by law, which requirement is met "where the individual can know from the wording of the relevant provision and, if need be, with the assistance of the courts' interpretation of it, what acts and omissions will make him liable" (Kokkinakis v. Greece, judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, § 52).
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