Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  REID v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 33221/96
• EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 33221/96

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 33221/96

  They refer to the Court's case-law which establishes that Article 6 § 1 cannot be relied on to create civil rights which have no legal basis in the State concerned (e.g. Fayed v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, §§ 65-67).

  That decision concerned only one aspect of the exercise of the CPS" powers and duties and cannot be regarded as an arbitrary removal of the courts" jurisdiction to determine a whole range of civil claims (see Fayed v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294, pp. 49-50, § 65).

• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 33221/96

  It established this as an inherent aspect of the safeguards enshrined in Article 6, referring to the principles of the rule of law and the avoidance of arbitrary power which underlie much of the Convention (see the Golder v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 13-18, §§ 28-36).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 33221/96

  The persistence of such suspicions is also a condition for the validity of the continued detention of the person concerned (see, amongst other authorities, Letellier v. France judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, p. 18, § 35).

 
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 33221/96

  The Court recalls its constant case-law to the effect that "Article 6 § 1 extends only to contestations (disputes) over (civil) "rights and obligations" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law; it does not itself guarantee any particular content for (civil) "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States" (see the James and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 46, § 81; the Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 70, § 192; the Holy Monasteries v. Greece judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301, p. 37, § 80).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 33221/96

  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 (Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, pp. 24-25, § 57).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 33221/96

  It may be subject to legitimate restrictions, for example, statutory limitation periods, security for costs orders, regulations concerning minors and persons of unsound mind, etc. (see the Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 October 1996, Reports 1996-IV, pp. 1502-3, §§ 51-52; the Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, pp. 80-81, §§ 62-67; the Golder judgment, cited above, p. 19, § 39).
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 33221/96

  Article 6 § 1 "may... be relied on by anyone who considers that an interference with the exercise of one 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 the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, § 44).
• EGMR, 23.10.1985 - 8848/80

  BENTHEM v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 33221/96

  It will however apply to disputes of a "genuine and serious nature" concerning the actual existence of the right as well as to the scope or manner in which it is exercised (Benthem v. the Netherlands judgment of 23 October 1985, Series A no. 97, p. 15, § 32).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 33221/96

  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 the Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, § 81; see also the Tre Traktörer v. Sweden judgment of 27 July 1989, Series A no. 159, p. 18, § 40).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84

  TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 33221/96

  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 the Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, § 81; see also the Tre Traktörer v. Sweden judgment of 27 July 1989, Series A no. 159, p. 18, § 40).
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM