Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIBSON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Exception préliminaire jointe au fond (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Non-violation de l'Art. 11 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIBSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of Art. 11 (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 09.04.1991 - 14327/88
• EGMR, 20.04.1993 - 14327/88

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 13.08.1981 - 7601/76

  YOUNG, JAMES ET WEBSTER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.1993 - 14327/88

  If the matters complained of by Mr Sibson constituted an infringement of his rights under Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention, the responsibility of the United Kingdom would nevertheless be engaged if that infringement resulted from a failure on its part to secure those rights to him in its domestic law (see the Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom judgment of 13 August 1981, Series A no. 44, p. 20, para. 49).

  Above all, the applicants in the earlier case were faced with a threat of dismissal involving loss of livelihood (see the judgment of 13 August 1981, Series A no. 44, p. 23, para. 55), whereas Mr Sibson was in a rather different position: he had the possibility of going to work at the nearby Chadderton depot, to which his employers were contractually entitled to move him (see paragraphs 10 and 14 above); their offer to him in this respect was not conditional on his rejoining TGWU; and it is not established that his working conditions there would have been significantly less favourable than those at the Greengate depot (see paragraph 25 above).

  I must say first that, in agreement with Judges Ganshof van der Meersch, Bindschedler-Robert, Liesch, Gölcüklü, Matscher, Pinheiro Farinha and Pettiti in their concurring opinion in the case of Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 13 August 1981, Series A no. 44, p. 28), my understanding of Article 11 (art. 11) is that "the negative aspect of freedom of association is necessarily complementary to, a correlative of and inseparable from its positive aspect.

• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.1993 - 14327/88

  Finally, I believe that the threat of a strike does not justify the necessity in a democratic society of such a measure as that taken by the applicant's employer having regard to the fundamental principle of the rule of law (Klass and Others judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 25, para. 55).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.1993 - 14327/88

  Therefore, it is not a question of recognising a new right not included in Article 11 (art. 11), but of merely interpreting this provision in accordance with the ordinary meaning given to the term "freedom" in the context and in the light of its object and purpose, in conformity with Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention of 23 May 1969 on the Law of Treaties (see the Golder v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 14, para. 29, and the Johnston and Others v. Ireland judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, p. 24, para. 51).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

  JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.1993 - 14327/88

  Therefore, it is not a question of recognising a new right not included in Article 11 (art. 11), but of merely interpreting this provision in accordance with the ordinary meaning given to the term "freedom" in the context and in the light of its object and purpose, in conformity with Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention of 23 May 1969 on the Law of Treaties (see the Golder v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 14, para. 29, and the Johnston and Others v. Ireland judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, p. 24, para. 51).

• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 3455/05

  A. u. a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  In exercising this supervision, the Court must give appropriate weight to such relevant factors as the nature of the rights affected by the derogation and the circumstances leading to, and the duration of, the emergency situation (Ireland v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 207; Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 May 1993, § 43, Series A no. 258; Aksoy, cited above, § 68).
• EGMR, 11.01.2006 - 52562/99

  SØRENSEN ET RASMUSSEN c. DANEMARK

  The same goes for the remainder of the judgments that the parties have referred to (Sibson v. U.K. judgment of 20 April 1993, Series A no. 258 and the Gustafsson v. Sweden judgment of 25 April 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II)".

  In Sibson v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 20 April 1993, Series A no. 258) a closed-shop agreement never came into effect although the applicant was forced to leave his job because of a demand to join a union which was not prescribed at the time of his recruitment.

• EGMR, 25.04.1996 - 15573/89

  GUSTAFSSON v. SWEDEN

  The responsibility of Sweden would nevertheless be engaged if those matters resulted from a failure on its part to secure to him under domestic law the rights set forth in Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention (see, amongst others, the Sibson v. the United Kingdom judgment of 20 April 1993, Series A no. 258-A, p. 13, para. 27).

  For reasons that I expressed in my dissenting opinion in the Sibson v. the United Kingdom judgment of 20 April 1993 (Series A no. 258-A, pp. 16-19), I do follow however its conclusion on the applicability of Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention to the subject-matter of the applicant's complaint.

 
• EGMR, 30.06.1993 - 16130/90

  SIGURÐUR A. SIGURJÓNSSON v. ICELAND

  Such a form of compulsion, in the circumstances of the case, strikes at the very substance of the right guaranteed by Article 11 (art. 11) and itself amounts to an interference with that right (see the above-mentioned Young, James and Webster judgment, pp. 22-23, paras. 55 and 57, and the Sibson v. the United Kingdom judgment of 20 April 1993, Series A no. 258-A, p. 14, para. 29).
• EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 1679/03

  Rechtssache G. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  83. Was das Verhalten der nationalen Behörden auch in Verfahren angeht, in denen es Aufgabe der Parteien ist, im Hinblick auf den Verfahrensfortgang die Initiative zu ergreifen, sind die nationalen Gerichte nicht von der Verpflichtung entbunden, die Anforderungen nach Artikel 6 der Konvention hinsichtlich der angemessenen Frist zu erfüllen (siehe Urteile Scopelliti ./. Italien vom 23. November 1993, Serie A Bd. 258 S. 10, Rdnr. 25, und Duclos ./. Frankreich vom 17. Dezember 1996, Urteils- und Entscheidungssammlung 1996-VI, S. 2180, Rdnr. 55).
• EGMR, 20.03.2003 - 52620/99

  JENSEN and RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

  The same goes for the remainder of judgments that the parties have referred to (The Sibson v. U.K. judgment of 20 April 1993, Series A no. 258 and the Gustafsson v. Sweden judgment of 25 April 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decision 1996-II)".
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 41571/98

  MARSHALL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The political and security situation covering the years 1974-1987 is described in the Court's Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 May 1993 (Series A no. 258, pp. 38-39, §§ 12-15).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 40451/98

  KERR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court does not doubt that any attempt to contest the lawfulness of the procedure for extending his detention would have had no prospects of success, given that the absence of any judicial involvement in that procedure was authorised by section 15(5) of the 1989 Act and that the Court in its Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 May 1993 (Series A no. 258) ruled that those applicants" complaint under Article 5 § 3 had been met by the derogation whose validity is at issue in the instant case (p. 57, § 74).
• EKMR, 09.05.1994 - 18759/91

  McLAUGHLIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  48; Brannigan and McBride judgment of 26 May 1993, Series A no. 258, p. 50, para.
• EGMR, 05.09.2000 - 36437/97

  HELLUM v. NORWAY

  No material has been adduced before the Court which could call into question the High Court's finding to the effect that the co-operation problems on Ward 10 were the decisive reason for the transfer and was, under the applicable law, a sufficient reason for taking the measure, falling within the employer's contractual freedom (see, mutatis mutandis, the Sibson v. the United Kingdom judgment of 20 April 1993, Series A no. 258-A, p. 14, § 29).
• EKMR, 09.05.1994 - 18714/91

  BRIND AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 08.04.1994 - 15533/89

  ENGLUND AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN