Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 35289/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2017,34916
EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 35289/11 (https://dejure.org/2017,34916)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19.09.2017 - 35289/11 (https://dejure.org/2017,34916)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19. September 2017 - 35289/11 (https://dejure.org/2017,34916)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,34916) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    REGNER c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

    Exception préliminaire rejetée (Article 34 - Victime);Exception préliminaire rejetée (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);Non-violation de l'article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure administrative;Procédure civile;Article 6-1 - Procès ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    REGNER v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    REGNER v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

    [DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative ...

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (35)

  • EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

    ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 35289/11
    With regard firstly to the existence of a right, the Court reiterates that 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 v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 120, ECHR 2005-X; Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no. 37575/04, § 91, ECHR 2012; Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc.

    This case is not only about the right to a fair trial under Article 6; at stake here is also the right of an applicant to access data related to his private life within the meaning of Article 8 under its procedural limb (see Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, ECHR 2005-X, and Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, ECHR 2000-V).

  • EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 38245/08

    R.P. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 35289/11
    While a State has a certain margin of appreciation when limiting Article 6 § 1 rights for certain legitimate ends, "[n]onetheless, the limitations applied must not restrict or reduce the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired" (see R.P. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 38245/08, § 64, 9 October 2012).

    [7] Under this Court's case-law, the "very essence" test has been applied almost exclusively in the context of cases relating to the right of access to a court (see Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 5809/08, § 129, ECHR 2016; Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 99, ECHR 2016 (extracts); and R.P. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 38245/08, § 65, 9 October 2012).

  • LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen, 05.08.2009 - L 7 AS 5/08
    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 35289/11
    A judgment delivered by the seventh chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court on 9 April 2009 (no. 7 As 5/2008) stated, among other things, that in the particular area in question, where the authorities decided not to disclose to the interested party the specific factual reasons for which he or she was considered untrustworthy from a security point of view, they were nonetheless obliged, in order for their decision to stand up to a judicial review, to make it entirely possible for those reasons to be verified - particularly as to the facts - by a court.

    According to the requirements clearly provided for under recent (and welcome) developments in Czech case-law: 1) where specific factual reasons are not given to an interested party who has been deemed untrustworthy for security reasons, the National Security Authority must submit to a reviewing court all the information, and the sources of such information, underlying the administrative decision; and 2) the reviewing court must re-examine, of its own motion, the relevance of all the information submitted to it (decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 9 April 2009 (no. 7 As 5/2008), cited at paragraph 63 of the judgment).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht