Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.S. c. SUÈDE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  Non-violation de l'Art. 8 Non-violation de l'Art. 6-1 Non-violation de l'Art. 13 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.S. v. SWEDEN

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  No violation of Art. 8 No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 13 (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 22.05.1995 - 20837/92
• EKMR, 11.04.1996 - 20837/92
• EGMR, 27.08.1997 - 20837/92, 74/1996/693/885

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.1997 - 20837/92

  Accordingly, it appears from the very terms of the legislation in issue that a "right" to prevent communication of such data could not, on arguable grounds, be said to be recognised under national law (see the Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 327-A, pp. 19-20, §§ 49-52).

  However, that discretion was not unfettered and was significantly more circumscribed than that in issue in the case of Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands (judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 327-A, pp. 19-20, §§ 49-52), referred to in the majority's reasoning.

• EGMR, 25.11.1993 - 14282/88

  ZANDER v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.1997 - 20837/92

  It reiterates that, according to the principles laid down in its case-law (see the judgments of 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), 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, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.1997 - 20837/92

  However, the Article 13 guarantee applies only in respect of grievances under the Convention which are arguable (see, for example, the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52).
• EGMR, 19.07.1995 - 17506/90

  KEROJÄRVI v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.1997 - 20837/92

  It reiterates that, according to the principles laid down in its case-law (see the judgments of 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), 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, 27.08.1997 - 20022/92

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.1997 - 20837/92

  By letter of 22 July 1996, the Agent of the Swedish Government ("the Government") informed the Registrar that it was the opinion of the Government that the present case and the case of Anne-Marie Andersson v. Sweden (no. 72/1996/691/883) should be considered by the same Chamber and that both cases should be considered by a Grand Chamber in accordance with Rule 53 § 1.

• EGMR, 27.08.1997 - 20022/92

  ANNE-MARIE ANDERSSON c. SUÈDE

  On 22 July 1996, the Agent of the Swedish Government ("the Government") wrote to the Registrar to inform him that it was the opinion of the Government that the present case and the case of M.S. v. Sweden (no. 74/1996/693/885) should be considered by the same Chamber and that both cases should be considered by a Grand Chamber in accordance with Rule 53 § 1.