Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 11800/85 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
EZELIN c. FRANCE
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'art. 11 Aucune question distincte au regard de l'art. 10 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
EZELIN v. FRANCE
Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 11 No separate issue under Art. 10 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 13.03.1989 - 11800/85
- EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 11800/85
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84
MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 11800/85
The term "restrictions" in paragraph 2 of Article 11 (art. 11-2) - and of Article 10 (art. 10-2) - cannot be interpreted as not including measures - such as punitive measures - taken not before or during but after a meeting (cf. in particular, as regards Article 10 (art. 10), the Handyside judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 21, § 43, and the Müller and Others judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 19, § 28).According to the Court's case-law, a norm cannot be regarded as a "law" unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable 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, among other authorities, the Müller and Others judgment previously cited, Series A no. 133, p. 20, § 29).
- EGMR, 13.08.1981 - 7601/76
YOUNG, JAMES ET WEBSTER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 11800/85
Notwithstanding its autonomous role and particular sphere of application, Article 11 (art. 11) must, in the present case, also be considered in the light of Article 10 (art. 10) (see the Young, James and Webster judgment of 13 August 1981, Series A no. 44, p. 23, § 57). - EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 11800/85
The term "restrictions" in paragraph 2 of Article 11 (art. 11-2) - and of Article 10 (art. 10-2) - cannot be interpreted as not including measures - such as punitive measures - taken not before or during but after a meeting (cf. in particular, as regards Article 10 (art. 10), the Handyside judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 21, § 43, and the Müller and Others judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 19, § 28).