Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 26.02.2019 - 65717/14 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,5967) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AUGUSTE v. LITHUANIA
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
AUGUSTÄ- v. LITHUANIA
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 28396/95
Nichtberufung eines liechtensteiner Richters in das Amt des Gerichtspräsidenten …
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2019 - 65717/14
The Court considers that, as in Harabin v. Slovakia (no. 58688/11, §§ 151-52, 20 November 2012), it was the applicant's professional behaviour in the context of the administration of justice which represented the essential aspect of the case (compare and contrast Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, §§ 48-50, ECHR 1999-VII; Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 79, 26 February 2009; Poyraz v. Turkey, no. 15966/06, § 58, 7 December 2010; Baka, cited above, §§ 148-49, where the Court found a link between the measures complained of and the exercise, by the applicants, of their right to freedom of expression). - EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 15966/06
Poyraz ./. Türkei
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2019 - 65717/14
The Court considers that, as in Harabin v. Slovakia (no. 58688/11, §§ 151-52, 20 November 2012), it was the applicant's professional behaviour in the context of the administration of justice which represented the essential aspect of the case (compare and contrast Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, §§ 48-50, ECHR 1999-VII; Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 79, 26 February 2009; Poyraz v. Turkey, no. 15966/06, § 58, 7 December 2010; Baka, cited above, §§ 148-49, where the Court found a link between the measures complained of and the exercise, by the applicants, of their right to freedom of expression). - EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58688/11
HARABIN v. SLOVAKIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2019 - 65717/14
The Court considers that, as in Harabin v. Slovakia (no. 58688/11, §§ 151-52, 20 November 2012), it was the applicant's professional behaviour in the context of the administration of justice which represented the essential aspect of the case (compare and contrast Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, §§ 48-50, ECHR 1999-VII; Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 79, 26 February 2009; Poyraz v. Turkey, no. 15966/06, § 58, 7 December 2010; Baka, cited above, §§ 148-49, where the Court found a link between the measures complained of and the exercise, by the applicants, of their right to freedom of expression).