Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 24095/94 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
EFSTRATIOU c. GRÈCE
Art. 3, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 9 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2, Art. 13+P1 Abs. 2, Art. 13+9 MRK
Non-violation de l'Art. 3 Non-violation de l'Art. 9 Non-violation de P1-2 Violation de l'Art. 13+P1-2 Violation de l'Art. 13+9 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
EFSTRATIOU v. GREECE
Art. 3, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 9 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2, Art. 13+P1 Abs. 2, Art. 13+9 MRK
No violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 9 No violation of P1-2 Violation of Art. 13+P1-2 Violation of Art. 13+9 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch) - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 16.10.1995 - 24095/94
- EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 24095/94
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (11)
- EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 21787/93
VALSAMIS c. GRÈCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 24095/94
[3] Case no. 74/1995/580/666. - EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81
POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 24095/94
On the other hand, as regards the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3), on which Miss Efstratiou did not expand, the Court considers that it contains no arguable allegation of a breach (see, mutatis mutandis, the Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, pp. 14-15, paras. 31-33). - EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71
Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 24095/94
The Court reiterates that Article 13 (art. 13) secures to anyone claiming on arguable grounds to be the victim of a violation of his rights and freedoms as protected in the Convention an effective remedy before a national authority in order both to have his claim decided and, if appropriate, to obtain redress (see, in particular, the following judgments: Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 29, para. 64; Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria, 21 June 1988, Series A no. 139, p. 11, para. 25; and Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 39, para. 122).
- EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87
VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 24095/94
The Court reiterates that Article 13 (art. 13) secures to anyone claiming on arguable grounds to be the victim of a violation of his rights and freedoms as protected in the Convention an effective remedy before a national authority in order both to have his claim decided and, if appropriate, to obtain redress (see, in particular, the following judgments: Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 29, para. 64; Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria, 21 June 1988, Series A no. 139, p. 11, para. 25; and Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 39, para. 122). - EGMR, 25.02.1982 - 7511/76
CAMPBELL ET COSANS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 24095/94
It denotes "views that attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance" (see the Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 February 1982, Series A no. 48, p. 16, para. 36). - EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10126/82
Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 24095/94
The Court reiterates that Article 13 (art. 13) secures to anyone claiming on arguable grounds to be the victim of a violation of his rights and freedoms as protected in the Convention an effective remedy before a national authority in order both to have his claim decided and, if appropriate, to obtain redress (see, in particular, the following judgments: Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 29, para. 64; Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria, 21 June 1988, Series A no. 139, p. 11, para. 25; and Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 39, para. 122). - EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88
KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 24095/94
As the Court observed in its judgment of 25 May 1993 in the case of Kokkinakis v. Greece (Series A no. 260-A, p. 18, para. 32), Jehovah's Witnesses enjoy both the status of a "known religion" and the advantages flowing from that as regards observance. - EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71
KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 24095/94
It reiterates that "the two sentences of Article 2 [of Protocol No. 1] (P1-2) must be read not only in the light of each other but also, in particular, of Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention (art. 8, art. 9, art. 10)" (see the Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 23, p. 26, para. 52). - EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82
JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 24095/94
The impugned measure therefore did not amount to an interference with her right to freedom of religion either (see, in particular, the Johnston and Others v. Ireland judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, p. 27, para. 63). - EGMR, 13.08.1981 - 7601/76
YOUNG, JAMES ET WEBSTER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 24095/94
The Court has also held that "although individual interests must on occasion be subordinated to those of a group, democracy does not simply mean that the views of a majority must always prevail: a balance must be achieved which ensures the fair and proper treatment of minorities and avoids any abuse of a dominant position" (Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom judgment of 13 August 1981, Series A no. 44, p. 25, para. 63). - EKMR, 16.05.1977 - 7050/75
ARROWSMITH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM