Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 22.10.1996 - 22083/93, 22095/93   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1996,13850
EGMR, 22.10.1996 - 22083/93, 22095/93 (https://dejure.org/1996,13850)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22.10.1996 - 22083/93, 22095/93 (https://dejure.org/1996,13850)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22. Oktober 1996 - 22083/93, 22095/93 (https://dejure.org/1996,13850)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1996,13850) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

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 ...Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

    RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.1996 - 22083/93
    1 (art. 6-1) if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see the Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, p. 24, para. 57 and, more recently, the Bellet v. France judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 333-B, p. 41, para. 31).

    The case-law of the Court was for the first time formulated in the Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom case (judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, p. 24, para. 57) where it is stated:.

    It is clear from the jurisprudence of the Court that limitations on the right of access to national courts "must not restrict or reduce the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired" (see the Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, p. 24, para. 57).

  • EGMR, 22.10.1996 - 22095/93

    AIREY v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.1996 - 22083/93
    (Application no. 22083/93; 22095/93).

    The case of Stubbings and Others originated in an application (no. 22083/93) against the United Kingdom lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) on 14 May 1993, by three British nationals, Ms Leslie Stubbings, Ms J.L. and Ms J.P. and the case of D.S. originated in an application (no. 22095/93) against the United Kingdom lodged on 14 June 1993 by Ms D.S., also a British national.

    In their applications of 14 May 1993 (no. 22083/93) and 14 June 1993 (no. 22095/93) to the Commission, all of the applicants complained that they were denied access to a court in respect of their claims for compensation for psychological injury caused by childhood sexual abuse because of the operation of the Limitation Act 1980, in violation of Article 6 para.

  • EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

    BELLET c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.1996 - 22083/93
    Instead, it must be established that other persons in an analogous or relevantly similar situation enjoy preferential treatment, and that there is no reasonable or objective justification for this distinction (see the Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1) judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192, p. 19, para.

    It is apparent then that persons in an analogous position to the applicants enjoy preferential treatment without reasonable or objective justification for the distinction (see the Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1) judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192, p. 19, para.

  • EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

    GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.1996 - 22083/93
    The Convention "is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective", (see the Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 12, para. 24).
  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

    ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.1996 - 22083/93
    1 (art. 6-1) which "secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal" (see the Golder v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, para. 36).
  • EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

    VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.1996 - 22083/93
    Contracting States enjoy a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law (see the Rasmussen v. Denmark judgment of 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 15, para. 40).
  • EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

    FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.1996 - 22083/93
    The Court reiterates that Article 14 (art. 14) affords protection against discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms safeguarded by the other substantive provisions of the Convention (see the Van der Mussele v. Belgium judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 22, para. 43).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94
    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.1996 - 22083/93
    1 (art. 6-1) if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see the Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, p. 24, para. 57 and, more recently, the Bellet v. France judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 333-B, p. 41, para. 31).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht