Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88, 14235/88   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1992,16406
EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88, 14235/88 (https://dejure.org/1992,16406)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 29.10.1992 - 14234/88, 14235/88 (https://dejure.org/1992,16406)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 29. Oktober 1992 - 14234/88, 14235/88 (https://dejure.org/1992,16406)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1992,16406) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    OPEN DOOR ET DUBLIN WELL WOMAN c. IRLANDE

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 14, Art. 17, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 53, Art. 8), Art. 14+8 MRK
    Incompétence (Art. 8) Exception préliminaire rejetée (victime) Exception préliminaire rejetée (délai de six mois) Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement) Exception préliminaire rejetée (tardiveté) Violation de l'art. 10 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 14+8 ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    OPEN DOOR AND DUBLIN WELL WOMAN v. IRELAND

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 14, Art. 17, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 53, Art. 8), Art. 14+8 MRK
    Lack of jurisdiction (Art. 8) Preliminary objection rejected (victim) Preliminary objection rejected (six month period) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) Preliminary objection rejected (out of time) Violation of Art. 10 Not necessary to examine Art. ...

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • NJW 1993, 773
 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (83)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88
    As the Court has observed before, it is not possible to find in the legal and social orders of the Contracting States a uniform European conception of morals, and the State authorities are, in principle, in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of the requirements of morals as well as on the "necessity" of a "restriction" or "penalty" intended to meet them (see, inter alia, the Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 22, para. 48, and the Müller and Others v. Switzerland judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 22, para. 35).

    Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see, inter alia, the above-mentioned Handyside judgment, Series A no. 24, p. 23, para. 49).

    (a) "it is not possible to find in the legal and social orders of the Contracting States a uniform European conception of morals" so that "the view taken of the requirements of morals varies from time to time and from place to place, especially in our era, characterised as it is by a far-reaching evolution of opinions on the subject" (Müller and Others v. Switzerland judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 22, para. 35; and see also Handyside v. the United kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 22, para. 48); and.

    This Court has also consistently declared since the Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976 (Series A no. 24, p. 23, paras. 48-49) that Article 10 para.

  • EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

    SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88
    Taking into consideration the high threshold of protection of the unborn provided under Irish law generally and the manner in which the courts have interpreted their role as the guarantors of constitutional rights, the possibility that action might be taken against the corporate applicants must have been, with appropriate legal advice, reasonably foreseeable (See the Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 31, para. 49).

    Secondly, a norm cannot be regarded as "law" unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct: he must be able - if need be with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequence which a given action may entail" (Sunday Times v. the United kingdom judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 31, para. 49).

  • EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84

    MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88
    As the Court has observed before, it is not possible to find in the legal and social orders of the Contracting States a uniform European conception of morals, and the State authorities are, in principle, in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of the requirements of morals as well as on the "necessity" of a "restriction" or "penalty" intended to meet them (see, inter alia, the Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 22, para. 48, and the Müller and Others v. Switzerland judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 22, para. 35).

    (a) "it is not possible to find in the legal and social orders of the Contracting States a uniform European conception of morals" so that "the view taken of the requirements of morals varies from time to time and from place to place, especially in our era, characterised as it is by a far-reaching evolution of opinions on the subject" (Müller and Others v. Switzerland judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 22, para. 35; and see also Handyside v. the United kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 22, para. 48); and.

     
  • EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

    OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88
    Accordingly, the Court must examine the question of "necessity" in the light of the principles developed in its case-law (see, inter alia, the Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, pp. 29-30, para. 59).

    [3] Judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, p. 46.

  • EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

    DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88
    According to my understanding of the position, the criterion of "necessity" relates exclusively to the measures which the State adopts in order to attain the (legitimate) "aim" pursued; it therefore concerns the appropriateness and proportionality of such measures, but it in no way empowers the European organs to "weigh up" or to call in question the legitimacy of the aim as such, in other words to inquire into whether it is "necessary" to seek to attain such an aim (see my opinion - in which I dissented on other grounds - attached to the Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 33).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

    SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88
    According to the jurisprudence of this Court this condition implies that there must be a measure of protection in national law against arbitrary interferences with the rights safeguarded by paragraph 1 (see, inter alia, the Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 33, para. 88; the Malone v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 32-33, paras. 67-68; and the Kruslin and Huvig v. France judgments of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, pp. 22-23, para. 30, and no. 176-B, pp. 54-55, para. 29); and it "does not merely refer back to domestic law but also relates to the quality of law, requiring it to be compatible with the rule of law, which is expressly mentioned in the preamble of the Convention" (see the above-mentioned Malone judgment, ibid.).
  • EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

    MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88
    According to the jurisprudence of this Court this condition implies that there must be a measure of protection in national law against arbitrary interferences with the rights safeguarded by paragraph 1 (see, inter alia, the Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 33, para. 88; the Malone v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 32-33, paras. 67-68; and the Kruslin and Huvig v. France judgments of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, pp. 22-23, para. 30, and no. 176-B, pp. 54-55, para. 29); and it "does not merely refer back to domestic law but also relates to the quality of law, requiring it to be compatible with the rule of law, which is expressly mentioned in the preamble of the Convention" (see the above-mentioned Malone judgment, ibid.).
  • EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 10890/84

    GROPPERA RADIO AG ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88
    In the Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland judgment of 28 March 1990 (Series A no. 173, p. 26, para. 68) the Court determined that "the scope of the concepts of foreseeability and accessibility depends to a considerable degree on the content of the instrument in issue, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed".
  • EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

    KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88
    According to the jurisprudence of this Court this condition implies that there must be a measure of protection in national law against arbitrary interferences with the rights safeguarded by paragraph 1 (see, inter alia, the Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 33, para. 88; the Malone v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 32-33, paras. 67-68; and the Kruslin and Huvig v. France judgments of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, pp. 22-23, para. 30, and no. 176-B, pp. 54-55, para. 29); and it "does not merely refer back to domestic law but also relates to the quality of law, requiring it to be compatible with the rule of law, which is expressly mentioned in the preamble of the Convention" (see the above-mentioned Malone judgment, ibid.).
  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

    JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88
    The Court recalls that Article 25 (art. 25) entitles individuals to contend that a law violates their rights by itself, in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if they run the risk of being directly affected by it (see, inter alia, the Johnston and Others v. Ireland judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, p. 21, para. 42).
  • EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

    OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  • EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

    NORRIS c. IRLANDE

  • EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

    PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  • EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 11613/85

    KOLOMPAR c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 68959/01

    Streikverbot für Staatsdiener: Gewerkschaften sehen volles Streikrecht für Beamte …

    Il est toutefois loisible à un particulier de soutenir qu'une loi viole ses droits, en l'absence d'acte individuel d'exécution, si l'intéressé est obligé de changer de comportement sous peine de poursuites (Norris, précité ; Bowman c. Royaume-Uni, no 24839/94, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-I) ou s'il fait partie d'une catégorie de personnes risquant de subir directement les effets de la législation (Burden c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 13378/05, §§ 33-35, 29 avril 2008 ; Johnston et autres c. Irlande, arrêt du 18 décembre 1986, série A no 112 ; Open Door et Dublin Well Woman c. Irlande, arrêt du 29 octobre 1992, série A no 246-A).
  • EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87

    OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA

    A person can properly claim to be a "victim" of an interference with the exercise of his rights under the Convention if he has been directly affected by the matters allegedly constituting the interference (see, inter alia and mutatis mutandis, the Norris v. Ireland judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, pp. 15-16, para. 31, and the Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland judgment of 29 October 1992, Series A no. 246, p. 22, para. 43).
  • EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 29381/09

    Homosexualität in Griechenland

    Open Door et Dublin Well Woman c. Irlande, 29 octobre 1992, § 44, série A no 246-A.

    Parti communiste unifié de Turquie et autres c. Turquie, 30 janvier 1998, §§ 29-30, Recueil 1998-I et, encore plus explicitement, Dumitru Popescu (no 2), précité, § 103. Non seulement la pratique de la Cour mais aussi l'acceptation des Etats parties confirment cette interprétation (voir les amendements constitutionnels adoptés après l'arrêt du 27 août 1991 dans l'affaire Demicoli c. Malte, série A no 210, suivi de la résolution DH (95) 211 du 11 septembre 1995 ; après l'arrêt adopté le 29 octobre 992 dans l'affaire Open Door et Dublin Well Woman c. Irlande, série A no 246-A, suivi de la résolution DH (96) 386 du 26 juin 1996 ; et après l'arrêt adopté le 23 octobre 1995 dans l'affaire Palaoro c. Autriche, série A no 329-B, suivi de la résolution DH (96) 150 du 15 mai 1996).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht