Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 50224/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,59993) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SIDLOVA v. SLOVAKIA
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 50224/99
- EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 50224/99
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 16.09.1996 - 17371/90
GAYGUSUZ v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 50224/99
To the extent that this part of the application has been substantiated the Court has found no appearance of a violation of the applicant's right not to be discriminated against within the meaning of Article 14 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Gaygusuz v. Austria, no. 17371/90, § 36, ECHR 1996-IV, and Thlimennos v. Greece [GC], no. 25735/94, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94
Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 50224/99
To the extent that this part of the application has been substantiated the Court has found no appearance of a violation of the applicant's right not to be discriminated against within the meaning of Article 14 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Gaygusuz v. Austria, no. 17371/90, § 36, ECHR 1996-IV, and Thlimennos v. Greece [GC], no. 25735/94, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 50224/99
The reasonableness of this period must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by the Court's case-law (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 50224/99
For similar reasons, in their respect, the applicant did not have an "arguable claim" and Article 13 therefore has no application to them (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52). - EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94
BELLET c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 50224/99
The Court further reiterates that that Article 6 § 1, under its "civil head", applies only to proceedings concerning the "determination" of a "civil right" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see among other authorities Acquaviva v. France, judgment of 21 November 1995, Series A no. 333, p. 14, § 46).