Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 23360/08 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,53007) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MIHAL v. SLOVAKIA
Art. 4, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Inadmissble (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02
ZARB ADAMI c. MALTE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 23360/08
Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention, Article 4 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 (see Zarb Adami v. Malta, no. 17209/02, § 43, ECHR 2006-VIII). - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 23360/08
The Court reiterates that Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131). - EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80
VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 23360/08
The Government relied on the Court's judgment in the case of Van der Mussele v. Belgium (23 November 1983, Series A no. 70) and the decision of the Constitutional Court of 5 November 2008. - EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88
KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 23360/08
This being so, paragraph 3 serves as an aid to the interpretation of paragraph 2. The four subparagraphs of paragraph 3, notwithstanding their diversity, are grounded on the governing ideas of the general interest, social solidarity and what is normal in the ordinary course of affairs (see Van der Mussele, cited above, 38; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, § 22, Series A no. 291-B; and Zarb Adami, cited above, § 44).
- EGMR, 04.06.2015 - 51637/12
CHITOS c. GRÈCE
Relying on Van der Mussele v. Belgium (23 November 1983, §§ 34-35, Series A no. 70) and Mihal v. Slovakia ((dec.), no. 23360/08, §§ 44-47, 28 June 2011), the applicant submitted that while the burden imposed on him was not criminal in nature, it amounted to "the menace of a penalty".