Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  QUARK FISHING LTD. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 56 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  QUARK FISHING LTD. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 56 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 15305/06

  The situations which it covers are clearly separate and distinct from circumstances where a Contracting State has not, through a declaration under Article 56 (former Article 63), extended the Convention or any of its Protocols to an overseas territory for whose international relations it is responsible (see Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 62, Series A no. 109; Bui Van Thanh and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 16137/90, Commission decision of 12 March 1990, Decisions and Reports 65, p. 330; and Yonghong v. Portugal (dec.), no. 50887/99, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 50887/99

  YONGHONG v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 15305/06

  The situations which it covers are clearly separate and distinct from circumstances where a Contracting State has not, through a declaration under Article 56 (former Article 63), extended the Convention or any of its Protocols to an overseas territory for whose international relations it is responsible (see Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 62, Series A no. 109; Bui Van Thanh and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 16137/90, Commission decision of 12 March 1990, Decisions and Reports 65, p. 330; and Yonghong v. Portugal (dec.), no. 50887/99, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EKMR, 12.03.1990 - 16137/90

  BUI VAN THANH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 15305/06

  The situations which it covers are clearly separate and distinct from circumstances where a Contracting State has not, through a declaration under Article 56 (former Article 63), extended the Convention or any of its Protocols to an overseas territory for whose international relations it is responsible (see Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 62, Series A no. 109; Bui Van Thanh and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 16137/90, Commission decision of 12 March 1990, Decisions and Reports 65, p. 330; and Yonghong v. Portugal (dec.), no. 50887/99, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 12.12.2001 - 52207/99

  V. und B. B., Ž. S., M. S., D. J. und D. S. gegen Belgien, Dänemark, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 15305/06

  Firstly, it relied on the Court's case-law which indicates that in certain circumstances the responsibility of a Contracting State was capable of being engaged outside its national territory where it exercised effective control (see Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, § 70, ECHR 2001-XII).

• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 55721/07

  Britische Soldaten sollen Kriegsverbrechen begangen haben

  L'existence de ce dispositif, qui a été intégré dans la Convention pour des raisons historiques, ne peut être interprétée aujourd'hui, à la lumière des conditions actuelles, comme limitant la portée de la notion de « juridiction'au sens de l'article 1. Les cas de figure visés par le principe du « contrôle effectif'se distinguent manifestement de ceux dans lesquels un Etat contractant n'a pas déclaré, par le biais de la notification prévue à l'article 56, d'étendre l'application de la Convention ou de l'un quelconque de ses Protocoles à un territoire d'outre-mer dont il assure les relations internationales (Loizidou (exceptions préliminaires), précité, §§ 86-89, et Quark Fishing Ltd c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 15305/06, CEDH 2006-XIV).
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09

  HASSAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  The existence of this mechanism, which was included in the Convention for historical reasons, cannot be interpreted in present conditions as limiting the scope of the term "jurisdiction" in Article 1. The situations covered by the "effective control" principle are clearly separate and distinct from circumstances where a Contracting State has not, through a declaration under Article 56, extended the Convention or any of its Protocols to an overseas territory for whose international relations it is responsible (see Loizidou (preliminary objections), cited above, §§ 86-89 and Quark Fishing Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15305/06, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 35622/04

  Diego Garcia

  Insofar as the applicants argued that the United Kingdom was liable for events occurring in BIOT because it exercised effective control over the territory, the Government relied on the Court's jurisprudence to the effect that the only means by which a State's responsibility under the Convention could be engaged for a territory, for whose international relations it was responsible, was by means of a notification under Article 56 (referring to Quark Fishing Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15305/06, ECHR 2006-XIV).

  The existence of this mechanism, which was included in the Convention for historical reasons, cannot be interpreted in present conditions as limiting the scope of the term "jurisdiction" in Article 1. The situations covered by the "effective control" principle are clearly separate and distinct from circumstances where a Contracting State has not, through a declaration under Article 56, extended the Convention or any of its Protocols to an overseas territory for whose international relations it is responsible (see Loizidou (preliminary objections), cited above, §§ 86-89 and Quark Fishing Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15305/06, ECHR 2006-...).".