Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  COLON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 8, Art. 14, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  COLON v. THE NETHERLANDS - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Inadmissible

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 49458/06

  Nevertheless, Article 34 entitles individuals to contend that legislation violates their rights by itself, in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if they run the risk of being directly affected by it; that is, if they are required either to modify their conduct or risk being prosecuted, or if they are members of a class of people who risk being directly affected by the legislation (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 27, Series A no. 31, and Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 29 October 1992, § 44, Series A no. 246-A; see as a recent authority Tanase, cited above, loc. cit.).
• EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88

  OPEN DOOR AND DUBLIN WELL WOMAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 49458/06

  Nevertheless, Article 34 entitles individuals to contend that legislation violates their rights by itself, in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if they run the risk of being directly affected by it; that is, if they are required either to modify their conduct or risk being prosecuted, or if they are members of a class of people who risk being directly affected by the legislation (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 27, Series A no. 31, and Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 29 October 1992, § 44, Series A no. 246-A; see as a recent authority Tanase, cited above, loc. cit.).
• EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84

  MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 49458/06

  The national authorities have direct democratic legitimation (see Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 97, ECHR 2003-VIII); moreover, by reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, they are in principle better placed than an international court to evaluate local needs and conditions (see, mutatis mutandis, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24; Müller and Others v. Switzerland, 24 May 1988, § 35, Series A no. 133; Wingrove v. the United Kingdom, 25 November 1996, § 58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, § 41, ECHR 2002-I; A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 223, ECHR 2010-...).

 
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 49458/06

  In principle, it is not sufficient for individual applicants to claim that the mere existence of the legislation violates their rights under the Convention; it is necessary that the law should have been applied to their detriment (principle stated in Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28; see as a recent authority and mutatis mutandis Tanase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 104, ECHR 2010 (extracts), with further references).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  ROTARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 49458/06

  The Court has accepted in past cases that prior judicial control, although desirable in principle where there is to be interference with a right guaranteed by Article 8, may not always be feasible in practice; in such cases, it may be dispensed with provided that sufficient other safeguards are in place (see, mutatis mutandis, Klass and Others, cited above, § 56; and Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 59, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 39343/98

  KLEYN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 49458/06

  The Court has held many times that an applicant cannot be regarded as having failed to exhaust domestic remedies if he or she can show, by providing relevant domestic case-law or any other suitable evidence, that an available remedy which he or she has not used was bound to fail (see, among many other authorities, Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 156, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 49458/06

  The national authorities have direct democratic legitimation (see Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 97, ECHR 2003-VIII); moreover, by reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, they are in principle better placed than an international court to evaluate local needs and conditions (see, mutatis mutandis, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24; Müller and Others v. Switzerland, 24 May 1988, § 35, Series A no. 133; Wingrove v. the United Kingdom, 25 November 1996, § 58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, § 41, ECHR 2002-I; A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 223, ECHR 2010-...).
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 49458/06

  In certain cases, an aggregate of non-judicial remedies may replace judicial control (see, mutatis mutandis, Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, §§ 64-65, Series A no. 116).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 49458/06

  The level of precision required of domestic legislation - which cannot in any case provide for every eventuality - depends to a considerable degree on the content of the instrument in question, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see, among many other authorities, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, §§ 95-96, ECHR 2008; see also Gillan and Quinton, cited above, §§ 76-77, with further references).

• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 63638/14

  POSEVINI v. BULGARIA

  One such situation is when the domestic courts have given conflicting rulings (see Whiteside v. the United Kingdom, no. 20357/92, Commission decision of 7 March 1994, Decisions and Reports 76-A, p. 80), as opposed to a consistent line of adverse precedents (see, among other authorities, Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 29 October 1992, § 50, Series A no. 246-A; Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 39, Series A no. 290; and Colon v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 49458/06, § 56, 15 May 2012).