Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.04.1993 - 14327/88   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/1993,12280
EGMR, 20.04.1993 - 14327/88 (https://dejure.org/1993,12280)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.04.1993 - 14327/88 (https://dejure.org/1993,12280)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. April 1993 - 14327/88 (https://dejure.org/1993,12280)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1993,12280) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

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 ... (12)

  • 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

    SORENSEN 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

    SIGURDUR 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).
  • EKMR, 09.05.1994 - 18714/91

    BRIND AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    The European Court of Human Rights has referred to the special problems involved in combating terrorism (Eur. Court H.R., Brogan and others judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145, p. 33, para. 61; p. 27, para. 48; Brannigan and McBride judgment of 26 May 1993, Series A no. 258, p. 50, para. 47, with further references), and the Commission has no doubt as to the difficulties involved in striking a fair balance between the requirements of protecting freedom of information - especially the free flow of information from the media - and the need to protect the State and the public against armed conspiracies seeking to overthrow the democratic order which guarantees this freedom and other human rights.
  • EKMR, 09.05.1994 - 18759/91

    McLAUGHLIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    The European Court of Human Rights has referred to the special problems involved in combating terrorism (Eur. Court H.R., Brogan and others judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145, p. 33, para. 61; p. 27, para. 48; Brannigan and McBride judgment of 26 May 1993, Series A no. 258, p. 50, para. 47, with further references), and the Commission has no doubt as to the difficulties involved in striking a fair balance between the requirements of protecting freedom of information - especially the free flow of information from the media - and the need to protect the State and the public against armed conspiracies seeking to overthrow the democratic order which guarantees this freedom and other human rights.
  • 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).
  • EGMR, 05.09.2000 - 36437/97

    HELLUM v. NORWAY

  • EKMR, 08.04.1994 - 15533/89

    ENGLUND AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht