Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  THE SUNDAY TIMES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 2)

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 14+10, Art. 14, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 10 No violation of Art. 13 and 14+10 Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 2)

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 14+10, Art. 14, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'Art. 10 Non-violation des art. 13 et 14+10 Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 05.10.1989 - 13166/87
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13166/87

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13166/87

  For the reasons developed in its Observer and Guardian judgment of today's date (Series A no. 216, pp. 27- 29, paras. 50-57), it considers that the Millett injunctions were "prescribed by law" and had the primary aim of "maintaining the authority of the judiciary" and the further aim of protecting "national security".

  Case no. 51/1990/242/313.

  [ï?ª] Series A no. 216, p. 46.

  [ï?ª] Series A no. 216, p. 47.

  [ï?ª] Series A no. 216, p. 48.

• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13166/87

  And it has to be recalled that the effectiveness of a remedy, for the purposes of Article 13 (art. 13), does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome (see the Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 48, para. 122).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13166/87

  In this connection, the Court's judgments relating to Article 10 (art. 10) - starting with Handyside (7 December 1976; Series A no. 24), concluding, most recently, with Oberschlick (23 May 1991; Series A no. 204) and including, amongst several others, Sunday Times (26 April 1979; Series A no. 30) and Lingens (8 July 1986; Series A no. 103) - enounce the following major principles.

 
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13166/87

  In this connection, the Court's judgments relating to Article 10 (art. 10) - starting with Handyside (7 December 1976; Series A no. 24), concluding, most recently, with Oberschlick (23 May 1991; Series A no. 204) and including, amongst several others, Sunday Times (26 April 1979; Series A no. 30) and Lingens (8 July 1986; Series A no. 103) - enounce the following major principles.
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13166/87

  In this connection, the Court's judgments relating to Article 10 (art. 10) - starting with Handyside (7 December 1976; Series A no. 24), concluding, most recently, with Oberschlick (23 May 1991; Series A no. 204) and including, amongst several others, Sunday Times (26 April 1979; Series A no. 30) and Lingens (8 July 1986; Series A no. 103) - enounce the following major principles.
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 10572/83

  MARKT INTERN VERLAG GMBH ET KLAUS BEERMANN c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13166/87

  This is evidenced not only by the words "conditions", "restrictions", "preventing" and "prevention" which appear in that provision, but also by the Court's Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979 and its markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann judgment of 20 November 1989 (Series A no. 165).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13166/87

  Article 14 (art. 14) affords protection against different treatment, without an objective and reasonable justification, of persons in similar situations (see, for example, the Fredin judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192, p. 19, para.
• EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 11034/84

  WEBER c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13166/87

  Seen in terms of the protection of the Attorney General's rights as a litigant, the interest in maintaining the confidentiality of that material had, for the purposes of the Convention, ceased to exist by 30 July 1987 (see, mutatis mutandis, the Weber judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, p. 23, para. 51).