Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JAURRIETA ORTIGALA v. SPAIN

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 24931/07

  The Court reiterates in this regard that Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee any particular content for (civil) "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States: the Court may not create by way of interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see, for example, Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B, and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 24931/07

  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, cited above, § 120; and, most recently, Boulois, cited above, § 96-101).
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 24931/07

  In carrying out this assessment, it is necessary to look beyond the appearances and the language used and to concentrate on the realities of the situation (see Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, 24 June 1982, § 38, Series A no. 50, and Roche, cited above, § 121).

 
• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 24931/07

  The Court reiterates in this regard that Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee any particular content for (civil) "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States: the Court may not create by way of interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see, for example, Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B, and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 24931/07

  Other criteria which may be taken into consideration by the Court include the recognition of the alleged right in similar circumstances by the domestic courts or the fact that the latter examined the merits of the applicant's request (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 41, ECHR 2007-II).
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 37575/04

  BOULOIS c. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 24931/07

  According to the recent case-law of the Court set out in Boulois v. Luxembourg ([GC], no. 37575/04, ECHR 2012) in order to ascertain whether the civil limb of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable to the proceedings concerning a request for prison leave, it should be first determined whether the prisoner possessed a "right" within the meaning of that provision (ibid. § 89).

• EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 3145/15

  FISCHER RODRIGUES CRUZ DA COSTA c. PORTUGAL

  Elle accueille donc l'exception soulevée par le Gouvernement et conclut à l'inapplicabilité de l'article 6 de la Convention en l'espèce (comparer avec Boulois, précité, § 104, et Jaurietta Ortigala c. Espagne (déc.), no 24931/07, 22 janvier 2013).