Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STEEL ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 5, Art. ... 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 5-3 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 6-2 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 6-3-b Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 6-3-c Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 11 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 13 Non-violation de l'art. 5-1 (première requérante) Non-violation de ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STEEL AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. ... 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Not necessary to examine Art. 5-3 Not necessary to examine Art. 6-2 Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3-b Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3-c Not necessary to examine Art. 11 Not necessary to examine Art. 13 No violation of Art. 5-1 (first applicant) No violation of ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 26.06.1996 - 24838/94
• EGMR, 23.09.1998 - 24838/94

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.1998 - 24838/94

  In addition, given the importance of personal liberty, it is essential that the applicable national law meet the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, which requires that all law, whether written or unwritten, be sufficiently precise to allow the citizen - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see the S.W. v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-B, pp. 41-42, §§ 35-36, and, mutatis mutandis, the Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 31, § 49, and the Halford v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 June 1997, Reports 1997-III, p. 1017, § 49).
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

  CHORHERR v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.1998 - 24838/94

  It is true that these protests took the form of physically impeding the activities of which the applicants disapproved, but the Court considers nonetheless that they constituted expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article 10 (see, for example, the Chorherr v. Austria judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-B, p. 35, § 23).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.1998 - 24838/94

  It observes that the Government have not raised any preliminary objection in respect of this omission by the applicants, and, in the absence of such a plea, it is not necessary for the Court to consider whether the complaint should have been declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see the Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1) judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p. 28, § 56, and the Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland judgment of 29 October 1992, Series A no. 246-A, p. 23, § 46).

 
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10964/84

  BROZICEK v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.1998 - 24838/94

  The Court, like the Commission, considers that the details contained in the charge-sheets given to the first and second applicants (see paragraphs 10 and 16 above) were sufficient to comply with this Article (see the Brozicek v. Italy judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 167, pp. 18-19, § 42).
• EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88

  OPEN DOOR AND DUBLIN WELL WOMAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.1998 - 24838/94

  It observes that the Government have not raised any preliminary objection in respect of this omission by the applicants, and, in the absence of such a plea, it is not necessary for the Court to consider whether the complaint should have been declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see the Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1) judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p. 28, § 56, and the Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland judgment of 29 October 1992, Series A no. 246-A, p. 23, § 46).
• EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92

  S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.1998 - 24838/94

  In addition, given the importance of personal liberty, it is essential that the applicable national law meet the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, which requires that all law, whether written or unwritten, be sufficiently precise to allow the citizen - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see the S.W. v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-B, pp. 41-42, §§ 35-36, and, mutatis mutandis, the Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 31, § 49, and the Halford v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 June 1997, Reports 1997-III, p. 1017, § 49).