Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BRITISH-AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 13 No separate issue under P1-1 (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BRITISH-AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD c. PAYS-BAS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 13 Aucune question distincte au regard de P1-1 (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 15.10.1993 - 19589/92
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 19589/92

Wird zitiert von ... (40)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 27.11.1991 - 12565/86

  OERLEMANS c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 19589/92

  (For a detailed discussion of the relevant legal developments and of the influence of the Benthem judgment, see the Court's Oerlemans v. the Netherlands judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A no. 219.).

  In its Oerlemans v. the Netherlands judgment of 27 November 1991 (Series A no. 219) the Court had recognised that under Netherlands law it was clearly established that, where an administrative appeal to a higher authority was not considered to offer sufficient guarantees as to a fair procedure, it was possible to have recourse to the civil courts for a full review of the administrative decision.

• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 19589/92

  In this respect the present case is to be distinguished from that of Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, where the civil courts had actually held the administrative tribunal in question to afford sufficient safeguards (judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 18, para. 54).
• EGMR, 23.10.1985 - 8848/80

  BENTHEM v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 19589/92

  As regards actions brought by individuals against government authorities it is the established case-law of the Supreme Court since the European Court's Benthem v. the Netherlands judgment of 23 October 1985 (Series A no. 97) that the civil courts must take into account the requirements of Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention.

 
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 19589/92

  The Court recognises that in a domain as technical as that of the granting of patents there may be good reasons for opting for an adjudicatory body other than a court of the classic kind integrated within the standard judicial machinery of the country (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, the Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, p. 39, para. 76; more recently, the McMichael v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B, p. 53, para. 80).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 19589/92

  1 (art. 6-1) (see, as a recent authority, the Hentrich v. France judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, p. 24, para. 65).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

  FISCHER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 19589/92

  1 (art. 6-1) (see, among other authorities, the Fischer v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, p. 17, para. 28).
• EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

  McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 19589/92

  The Court recognises that in a domain as technical as that of the granting of patents there may be good reasons for opting for an adjudicatory body other than a court of the classic kind integrated within the standard judicial machinery of the country (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, the Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, p. 39, para. 76; more recently, the McMichael v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B, p. 53, para. 80).
• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 19589/92

  1 (art. 6-1) (see, mutatis mutandis, the Air Canada v. the United Kingdom judgment of 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A, p. 21, para. 62).

• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Consequently, the company were denied a protected intellectual property right but were not deprived of their existing property" ( British-American Tobacco Company Ltd v. the Netherlands , Series A no. 331, judgment of 20 November 1995, opinion of the Commission, p. 37, §§ 71-72).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.04.2011 - C-70/10

  Rechtsangleichung

  78 - Vgl. u. a. EMRK, Entscheidungen Smith Kline und French Laboratories Ltd. gegen Niederlande vom 4. Oktober 1990, Beschwerde Nr. 12633/87, DR 66, S. 81, und A. D. gegen Niederlande vom 11. Januar 1994, Beschwerde Nr. 21962/93; EGMR, Urteile British-American Tobacco Company Ltd gegen Niederlande vom 20. November 1995, Serie A, Nr. 331, §§ 71 und 72, Chappel gegen Vereinigtes Königreich vom 30. März 1989, Beschwerde Nr. 10461/83, Serie A, Nr. 152A, § 59, und Anheuser-Bush Inc.
• EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 73049/01

  ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC. c. PORTUGAL

  " (British-American Tobacco Company Ltd c. Pays-Bas, série A no 331, arrêt du 20 novembre 1995, avis de la Commission, p. 37, §§ 71-72).

  A cet égard, nous sommes d'accord avec la majorité quant à la partie de l'arrêt indiquant sans ambiguïté l'applicabilité de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1, question qui n'avait jamais été clairement tranchée par la jurisprudence de la Cour (dans l'affaire British American Tobacco Company Ltd c. Pays-Bas, arrêt du 20 novembre 1995, série A no 331, alors que la Commission avait considéré que l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 n'avait pas été violé, la Cour a jugé ( § 91) qu'il ne s'imposait pas de décider si la demande de brevet déposée par la requérante constituait un « bien'entrant dans le domaine de la protection accordée par l'article 1 du Protocole no 1).

 
• EGMR, 15.12.2020 - 33399/18

  PISKIN v. TURKEY

  In particular, the Court emphasises that even if the aforementioned dismissal procedure were considered at variance with Article 6 § 1 in one way or another, no issue would arise if there was available to the applicant a remedy ensuring the determination of his asserted civil right by an independent judicial body that did have sufficient jurisdiction and did itself provide the safeguards required by Article 6 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, British-American Tobacco Company Ltd v. the Netherlands, 20 November 1995, § 78, Series A no. 331; see also Oerlemans v. the Netherlands, 27 November 1991, §§ 53-58, Series A no. 219).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.05.2006 - C-506/04

  Wilson - Richtlinie 98/5/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 16. …

  29 - EGMR, Urteil Campbell und Fell/Vereinigtes Königreich (zitiert in Fußnote 27), § 76, und EGMR, Urteil Lithgow u. a./Vereinigtes Königreich vom 8. Juli 1986, Serie A, Nr. 102, § 201, und EGMR, Urteil British-American Tobacco Company LTD/Niederlande vom 20. Jänner 1995, Serie A, Nr. 331, § 77.
• EGMR, 12.10.2005 - 73049/01

  ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC. v. PORTUGAL

  Consequently, the company were denied a protected intellectual property right but were not deprived of their existing property" (British-American Tobacco Company Ltd v. the Netherlands, Series A no. 331, judgment of 20 November 1995, opinion of the Commission, p. 37, §§ 71-72).

  In that connection, we agree with the majority's comments in the section of the judgment which unambiguously states that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was applicable, an issue which had never been clearly settled by a decision of the Court (in the British American Tobacco Company Ltd v. the Netherlands, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 331, after the Commission had expressed the opinion that Article 1 of Protocol No 1 had not been violated, the Court held (§ 91) that it was unnecessary to decide whether the patent application filed by the applicant company in that case constituted a "possession" that came within the scope of the protection afforded by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

• EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 25419/94

  DENEV v. SWEDEN

  1 (Art. 6-1), which is thus applicable to the present case (cf. Eur. Court HR, British-American Tobacco Company Ltd. v. the Netherlands judgment of 20 November 1995, para. 67, and Comm. Report 19.5.94, paras. 51-52, Series A no. 331, pp. 23 and 33 respectively).

  Consequently, no separate issue arises under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) in relation to the matters complained of (cf. the above- mentioned British-American Tobacco Company Ltd. v. the Netherlands judgment, Series A no. 331, p. 29, para. 91).

• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 14717/04

  BERGER-KRALL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  The Court reiterates that where the right claimed is a civil right, the role of Article 6 § 1 in relation to Article 13 is that of a lex specialis, the requirements of Article 13 being absorbed by those of Article 6 § 1 (see, among other authorities, the British-American Tobacco Company Ltd v. the Netherlands, 20 November 1995, § 89, Series A no. 331, and Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain, 19 December 1997, § 41, Reports 1997-VIII).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 5126/05

  YORDANOVA AND TOSHEV v. BULGARIA

  The requirements of Article 13 are less strict than, and are here absorbed by, those of Article 6 § 1 (see, among many other authorities, British-American Tobacco Company Ltd v. the Netherlands, 20 November 1995, § 89, Series A no. 331).
• EGMR, 17.12.1996 - 20641/92

  TERRA WONINGEN B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Dans son mémoire puis à nouveau à l'audience devant la Cour, le Gouvernement, se prévalant notamment de l'arrêt British-American Tobacco Company Ltd c. Pays-Bas rendu par la Cour le 20 novembre 1995 (série A no 331), a affirmé qu'il eût été loisible à la société requérante de former un pourvoi devant la Cour de cassation.
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

  YANAKIEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 72034/01

  DRUZSTEVNÍ ZÁLOZNA PRIA AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 19.12.1997 - 26737/95

  BRUALLA GÓMEZ DE LA TORRE v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 21.10.2003 - 29010/95

  CREDIT INDUSTRIEL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 10.07.1998 - 20390/92

  TINNELLY & SONS LTD AND OTHERS AND McELDUFF AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 10508/02

  GJONBOCARI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 43578/98

  I.D. v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 57381/00

  KOZLOVA ET SMIRNOVA contre la LETTONIE
• EGMR, 19.12.1997 - 20772/92

  HELLE c. FINLANDE
• EGMR, 26.08.1997 - 22839/93

  DE HAAN c. PAYS-BAS
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 61005/09

  VARELA GEIS c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4909/04

  SERYAVIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 7352/03

  BESHIRI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 19732/17

  STICHTING LANDGOED STEENBERGEN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 16096/08

  ALMENARA ALVAREZ c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 66455/01

  BULINWAR OOD ET HRUSANOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 03.05.2005 - 45168/99

  DE LIEDEKERKE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 11.09.2001 - 43686/98

  AGUADO DEL MORAL contre l'ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 11270/04

  MAZEAS c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 1020/07

  ASSOCIACIO PROTECTORA D'ANIMALS, PLANTES, MEDI AMBIENT, (APAPMA) c. ANDORRE
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 42872/02

  CORNIF v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 41357/98

  MISSON contre la BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 06.06.2000 - 33129/96

  OLIVIEIRA v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 19.10.1999 - 46252/98

  DONAT contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EKMR, 14.01.1998 - 34072/96

  SJÖÖ v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 77575/01

  FARANGE S.A. V. FRANCE
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 38233/03

  IPAMARK contre l'ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 07.10.2003 - 59996/00

  LLOPIS RUIZ contre l'ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 23.11.2000 - 50835/00

  KOZLOVS contre la LETTONIE
• EGMR, 25.05.2000 - 46834/99

  SOCIEDAD GENERAL DE AGUAS DE BARCELONA S.A. contre l'ESPAGNE