Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 28.11.1996 - 23366/94, 63/1995/569/655 |
Zitiervorschläge
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. November 1996 - 23366/94, 63/1995/569/655 (https://dejure.org/1996,16139)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1996,16139) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NSONA v. THE NETHERLANDS
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34 MRK
Preliminary objection rejected (victim) No violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 8 Not necessary to examine Art. 13 (englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NSONA c. PAYS-BAS
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34 MRK
Exception préliminaire rejetée (victime) Non-violation de l'art. 3 Non-violation de l'art. 8 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 13 (französisch) - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 06.07.1994 - 23366/94
- EGMR, 28.11.1996 - 23366/94, 63/1995/569/655
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12313/86
MOUSTAQUIM c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.1996 - 23366/94
However, it does not appear that these decisions were intended to put an end to, and afford redress for, any violation of the Convention; they did not reverse or compensate for any of the measures which led to the applicants" separation between 31 December 1993 and 12 January 1995 (see, mutatis mutandis, the Moustaquim v. Belgium judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 193, p. 17, para. 33). - EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89
CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.1996 - 23366/94
This may be of value in confirming or refuting the appreciation that has been made by the Contracting Party of the well-foundedness or otherwise of the applicants" fears (see, mutatis mutandis, the Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 30, para. 76). - EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87
VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.1996 - 23366/94
a) States have the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations including Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3), to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, para. 102). - EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86
LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.1996 - 23366/94
Consequently, a measure by a public authority reversing or mitigating the effect of the act or omission alleged to be in breach of the Convention in principle deprives such a person of his status as a victim only where the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, such breach (see, among many other authorities, the Lüdi v. Switzerland judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 18, para. 34). - EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89
LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.1996 - 23366/94
The Court does not find it necessary on this occasion to give a general ruling on the question whether it is permissible for an applicant to limit a referral to the Court to some of the issues on which the Commission has stated its opinion (see, mutatis mutandis, the Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections) judgment of 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310, pp.