Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  K.T. v. NORWAY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 8 No violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.01.2006 - 26664/03
• EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 26664/03

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 26664/03

  This "right to a court", of which the right of access is an aspect, may be relied on by anyone who considers on arguable grounds that an interference with the exercise of his (civil) rights is unlawful and complains that he has not had the possibility of submitting that claim to a tribunal meeting the requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 20, § 44; Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 30, § 81; and Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, p. 24, § 55).

  Where there is a serious and genuine dispute as to the lawfulness of such an interference, going either to the very existence or the scope of the asserted civil right, Article 6 § 1 entitles the individual "to have this question of domestic law determined by a tribunal" (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 30, § 81; see also Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, p. 18, § 40).

  Having regard to its reasoning and conclusion above in relation to the complaint under Article 6 § 1, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the case under Article 13 since its requirements are less strict than, and are here absorbed by those of Article 6 § 1 (see, amongst many other authorities De Geouffre de la Pradelle v. France, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 253-B, p. 43, § 37; Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 32, § 88).

• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 26664/03

  This "right to a court", of which the right of access is an aspect, may be relied on by anyone who considers on arguable grounds that an interference with the exercise of his (civil) rights is unlawful and complains that he has not had the possibility of submitting that claim to a tribunal meeting the requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 20, § 44; Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 30, § 81; and Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, p. 24, § 55).

  Where the individual's access is limited either by operation of law or in fact, the Court will examine whether the limitation imposed impaired the essence of the right and, in particular, whether it pursued a legitimate aim and there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, pp. 24-25, § 57).

• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 26664/03

  The Court reiterates that, according to the principles laid down in its case-law (see, for instance, Zander v. Sweden, 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-B, p. 38, § 22, and Kerojärvi v. Finland, 19 July 1995, Series A no. 322, p. 12, § 32; Anne Marie Andersson, cited above, § 33; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, §§ 40-64, ECHR 2007-...), it must ascertain whether there was a dispute ("contestation") over a "right" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law.

 
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 26664/03

  This "right to a court", of which the right of access is an aspect, may be relied on by anyone who considers on arguable grounds that an interference with the exercise of his (civil) rights is unlawful and complains that he has not had the possibility of submitting that claim to a tribunal meeting the requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 20, § 44; Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 30, § 81; and Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, p. 24, § 55).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 26664/03

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, § 36).
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

  ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 26664/03

  Whilst the dismissal of the lawsuit was upheld, it could therefore arguably be maintained, in view of the scope of the Supreme Court's review, that this review complied with the right to a court under Article 6 § 1 (see Zumtobel v. Austria, judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-A, p. 10, § 32; Fischer v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, p. 18, § 34; Z and Others, cited above, § 101).
• EGMR, 25.11.1993 - 14282/88

  ZANDER v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 26664/03

  The Court reiterates that, according to the principles laid down in its case-law (see, for instance, Zander v. Sweden, 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-B, p. 38, § 22, and Kerojärvi v. Finland, 19 July 1995, Series A no. 322, p. 12, § 32; Anne Marie Andersson, cited above, § 33; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, §§ 40-64, ECHR 2007-...), it must ascertain whether there was a dispute ("contestation") over a "right" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law.
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84

  TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 26664/03

  Where there is a serious and genuine dispute as to the lawfulness of such an interference, going either to the very existence or the scope of the asserted civil right, Article 6 § 1 entitles the individual "to have this question of domestic law determined by a tribunal" (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 30, § 81; see also Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, p. 18, § 40).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

  FISCHER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 26664/03

  Whilst the dismissal of the lawsuit was upheld, it could therefore arguably be maintained, in view of the scope of the Supreme Court's review, that this review complied with the right to a court under Article 6 § 1 (see Zumtobel v. Austria, judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-A, p. 10, § 32; Fischer v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, p. 18, § 34; Z and Others, cited above, § 101).
• EGMR, 19.07.1995 - 17506/90

  KEROJÄRVI v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 26664/03

  The Court reiterates that, according to the principles laid down in its case-law (see, for instance, Zander v. Sweden, 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-B, p. 38, § 22, and Kerojärvi v. Finland, 19 July 1995, Series A no. 322, p. 12, § 32; Anne Marie Andersson, cited above, § 33; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, §§ 40-64, ECHR 2007-...), it must ascertain whether there was a dispute ("contestation") over a "right" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law.
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 37112/97

  FOGARTY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 31253/96

  McELHINNEY v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI