Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EZEH AND CONNORS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Admissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 39665/98, 40086/98
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 39665/98
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 39665/98
• EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 39665/98

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86

  BENDENOUN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 39665/98

  The applicants also point out that the second and third criteria are alternative and not necessarily cumulative (Lauko v. Slovakia judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, no. 88, § 57), although a cumulative approach may be adopted where a separate analysis of each criterion does not allow a conclusion as to the existence of a criminal charge (Bendenoun v. France judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 284, § 47).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 39665/98

  Mr Connors considers that a petition to the Secretary of State would not have been an effective remedy as he was effectively challenging the very scheme which operated under the authority of the Secretary of State (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, § 116).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 39665/98

  Even assuming, as the Government argue, that the applicant could have petitioned the Secretary of State and then applied for leave to take judicial review proceedings or vice versa as suggested by the Government, the Court recalls that the applicant was entitled to choose which remedy to exhaust first (Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, § 23, and no. 24196/94, Commission decision of. 22 January 1996, Decisions and Reports (DR) 84-A, at p. 81).

 
• EGMR, 24.05.1991 - 12744/87

  QUARANTA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 39665/98

  In the first place, the above-cited Benham case indicates (at § 61) that once an individual risks a loss of liberty, the interests of justice in principle call for legal representation (see also the Quaranta v. Switzerland judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 205, § 33).
• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 39665/98

  The applicants add that each of the three criteria should be considered independently: that the first criterion is "of relative weight and serves only as a starting point" (the above-cited Benham judgment, § 56, and Ozturk v. Germany judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, § 52); that the second criterion is "of greater import", and that the third criterion will usually be decisive if the penalty concerned involves a deprivation of liberty (the above-cited Engel judgment, § 82).
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 39665/98

  Prior to the 1991 Act, the practice of the authorities was, subject to disciplinary matters, to grant remission of sentence and to release prisoners unconditionally (see Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, §§ 26-29).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 39665/98

  The Court recalls that it is incumbent on the State invoking an alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies, not only to show that the remedy was accessible and capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints, but that it offered reasonable prospects of success (see the Selmouni v. France judgment, [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 75-76, ECHR 1999-V).