Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 54357/15 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,14522) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SMITH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 42326/98
Schutz des Rechts auf Achtung des Privatlebens und Familienlebens; Möglichkeit …
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 54357/15
In this connection, there are different ways of ensuring "respect for private life", and the nature of the State's obligation will depend on the particular aspect of private life that is at issue (see Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 46, ECHR 2003-III). - EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78
Eckle ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 54357/15
The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him/her of his/her status as a "victim" of a violation of a Convention right unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, inter alia, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51; Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III; and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI). - EGMR, 16.09.1996 - 17371/90
GAYGUSUZ v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 54357/15
The Court reiterates that, in accordance with its established case-law, Article 14 has no independent existence, since it has effect solely in relation to the rights and freedoms safeguarded by the other substantive provisions of the Convention and its Protocols (see, among many other authorities, Pavel Ivanov v. Russia, 35222/04 (Dec.) 20/02/2007 and Gaygusuz v. Austria, no. 17371/90, § 36, ECHR 1996-IV).
- EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35222/04
PAVEL IVANOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 54357/15
The Court reiterates that, in accordance with its established case-law, Article 14 has no independent existence, since it has effect solely in relation to the rights and freedoms safeguarded by the other substantive provisions of the Convention and its Protocols (see, among many other authorities, Pavel Ivanov v. Russia, 35222/04 (Dec.) 20/02/2007 and Gaygusuz v. Austria, no. 17371/90, § 36, ECHR 1996-IV). - EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08
Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 54357/15
40660/08 and 60641/08, § 98, ECHR 2012). - EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 30671/96
- EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 2591/19
GACHECHILADZE v. GEORGIA
The relevant general principles are summarised in, among other authorities, Smith v. the United Kingdom ((dec.) [Committee], no. 54357/15, §§ 44-47, 28 March 2017). - EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 45367/16
MARTINEZ LOPEZ-PUIGCERVER v. SPAIN
Firstly, has the applicant suffered a "significant disadvantage"? Secondly, does respect for human rights compel the Court to examine the case? Thirdly, has the case been duly considered by a domestic tribunal (see Smith v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 54357/15, § 44, 28 March 2017)? The main element of the criterion set by Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention is whether the applicant has suffered any significant disadvantage, the assessment of which may be based on criteria such as the financial impact of the matter at issue or the importance of the case for the applicant (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010, and Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, 1 July 2010).