Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 15.10.2002 - 51975/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2002,42065) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LELLA v. FINLAND
Art. 10, Art. 11, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2002 - 51975/99
In their internal legal orders the Contracting States make the rights to vote and to stand for election subject to conditions which are not in principle precluded under Article 3. The States have a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere, but it is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with; it has to satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate (see Podkolzina v. Latvia, 46726/99, 9 April 2002, § 33, ECHR 2002-..., Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV, and Gaulieder v. Slovakia, application no. 36909/97, Commission's report of 10 September 1999). - EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 46726/99
PODKOLZINA c. LETTONIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2002 - 51975/99
In their internal legal orders the Contracting States make the rights to vote and to stand for election subject to conditions which are not in principle precluded under Article 3. The States have a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere, but it is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with; it has to satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate (see Podkolzina v. Latvia, 46726/99, 9 April 2002, § 33, ECHR 2002-..., Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV, and Gaulieder v. Slovakia, application no. 36909/97, Commission's report of 10 September 1999).