Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DE BRUIN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+6, Art. 14, Art. 14+13, Art. 14+6, Art. 14+P12 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 9765/09

  The starting-point must be the provisions of the relevant domestic law and their interpretation by the domestic courts (see Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 49, Series A no. 327-A; Roche, cited above, § 120; and Boulois, loc. cit.).
• EGMR, 07.10.1988 - 10519/83

  SALABIAKU c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 9765/09

  This does not, in itself, raise any issue under the Convention: it should be recalled that the Convention leaves States free to designate as a criminal offence an act or omission not constituting the normal exercise of one of the rights that it protects (see, for example, Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 81, Series A no. 22; Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, § 27, Series A no. 141-A; and M.M. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39339/98, 21 May 2002).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 9765/09

  Article 13 cannot reasonably be interpreted so as to require a remedy in domestic law in respect of any supposed grievance under the Convention that an individual may have, no matter how unmeritorious his complaint may be: the grievance must be an arguable one in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 54, Series A no. 131, and Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 9765/09

  In carrying out this assessment, it is necessary to look beyond the appearances and the language used and to concentrate on the realities of the situation (see Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, 24 June 1982, § 38, Series A no. 50; Roche, cited above, § 121; and Boulois, § 92).
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 9765/09

  The dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise; and, finally, the result of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not being sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see, among other authorities, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 47, Series A no. 43; Neigel v. France, 17 March 1997, § 38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II; Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 74, 15 October 2009; and Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no. 37575/04, § 90, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 9765/09

  In this connection, it should be recalled that, save in so far as substantive provisions of the Convention may require the active prosecution of individuals reasonably suspected of being responsible for serious violations thereof (see, for example, M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 153, ECHR 2003-XII; Siliadin v. France, no. 73316/01, § 112, ECHR 2005-VII; and Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, passim, ECHR 2009), the decision whether or not to prosecute is not within the Court's remit (see M.M. (dec.), cited above).
• EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 65542/12

  STICHTING MOTHERS OF SREBRENICA AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 9765/09

  Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee any particular content for (civil) "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States: the Court may not create by way of interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see, for example, Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B; Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 98, ECHR 2001-V; Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X; Boulois, cited above, § 91; and Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65542/12, § 168, 11 June 2013).
• EGMR, 23.10.1985 - 8848/80

  BENTHEM v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 9765/09

  Such renunciation, even if delivered in writing to a particular individual, is not to be equated with a licence granted in accordance with the law (compare and contrast Benthem v. the Netherlands, 23 October 1985, § 33, Series A no. 97).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95

  ATHANASSOGLOU ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 9765/09

  Article 13 cannot reasonably be interpreted so as to require a remedy in domestic law in respect of any supposed grievance under the Convention that an individual may have, no matter how unmeritorious his complaint may be: the grievance must be an arguable one in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 54, Series A no. 131, and Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 9765/09

  Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee any particular content for (civil) "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States: the Court may not create by way of interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see, for example, Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B; Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 98, ECHR 2001-V; Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X; Boulois, cited above, § 91; and Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65542/12, § 168, 11 June 2013).
• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 19673/16

  ADIGUN v. IRELAND

  The applicant made complaints under Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention, both in conjunction with his complaints under Article 6. Having already found Article 6 inapplicable in the present case, the Court must reach the same conclusion as regards the other two Articles (see De Bruin v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 9765/09, 27 July 2013).