Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KUBLI v. SWITZERLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 18928/91

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2002 - 50364/99

  The court, referring to the Court's judgments in the Ravnsborg and Putz cases, considered that an oral hearing was not required since the proceedings were not criminal in character and Article 6 of the Convention did not apply (see, respectively, the judgments of 23 March 1994, Series A no. 283-A, p. 28 et seq., and of 22 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I, p. 324 et seq.).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94

  JANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2002 - 50364/99

  In particular, it must determine whether the interference in issue was "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued" (see, inter alia, the Lingens v. Austria judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, pp. 25-26, §§ 40-41; Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, ECHR 1999-I, pp. 199-200, § 30).
• EGMR, 23.03.1994 - 14220/88

  RAVNSBORG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2002 - 50364/99

  In order to determine whether Article 6 was applicable under its "criminal" head, the Court will have regard to the three alternative criteria laid down in its case-law (see, inter alia, the following judgments: Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, p. 35, § 82; Ravnsborg v. Sweden, 23 March 1994, Series A no. 283-B, p. 28, § 30; and Putz v. Austria, 22 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions p. 324, § 31).

• EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 51000/11

  RADOBULJAC v. CROATIA

  The Court reiterates that Article 10 is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb (see, for example, Kubli v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 50364/99, 21 February 2002).