Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BENAVENT DÍAZ c. ESPAGNE

  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BENAVENT DÍAZ v. SPAIN

  Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BENAVENT DIAZ c. ESPAGNE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [FRA]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

  SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 46479/10

  The Court always retains the power to review whether a particular reservation is valid and complies with the requirements of Article 57 of the Convention; should it deem the reservation valid, the Court is not authorised to review the conformity of the legal provisions in question with the Convention Articles to which the reservation relates (see Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 60, ECHR 2002-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

  BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 46479/10

  The Court has had occasion to specify that Article 57 § 1 of the Convention requires "precision and clarity" from the Contracting States, and that by requiring them to submit a brief statement of the law concerned, this provision does not impose a "purely formal requirement" but sets out "a condition of substance which constitutes an evidential factor and contributes to legal certainty" (see Belilos v. Switzerland, 29 April 1988, §§ 55 and 59, Series A no. 132; Weber v. Switzerland, 22 May 1990, § 38, Series A no. 177; and Eisenstecken v. Austria, no. 29477/95, § 24, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

  GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 46479/10

  Conversely, it has found that a reservation which merely referred to a permissive, non-exhaustive provision of the Constitution and did not mention the specific provisions excluding public hearings did not satisfy the requirements of Article 57 § 2 of the Convention (see Eisenstecken, cited above, § 29, and Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995, § 51, Series A no. 328-C; see also Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, nos. 18640/10 and 4 others, § 210, 4 March 2014, concerning a reservation that did not refer to or mention specific provisions of Italian law excluding offences or proceedings from the scope of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention).

 
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 18640/10

  GRANDE STEVENS AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 46479/10

  Conversely, it has found that a reservation which merely referred to a permissive, non-exhaustive provision of the Constitution and did not mention the specific provisions excluding public hearings did not satisfy the requirements of Article 57 § 2 of the Convention (see Eisenstecken, cited above, § 29, and Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995, § 51, Series A no. 328-C; see also Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, nos. 18640/10 and 4 others, § 210, 4 March 2014, concerning a reservation that did not refer to or mention specific provisions of Italian law excluding offences or proceedings from the scope of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention).
• EGMR, 25.02.1982 - 7511/76

  CAMPBELL ET COSANS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 46479/10

  However, the Court has accepted that a reservation can be applicable to a subsequent law where the law in question "goes no further than a law in force at the time when the reservation was made" (see Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1982, § 37, Series A no. 48, concerning a law that was no more than a re-enactment of an identical provision of the previous law covered by the reservation; see also Schädler-Eberle, cited above, §§ 61 and 73, concerning a legislative amendment that did not extend the scope of the reservation already made and had not given rise to a formal amendment to the reservation in a notice issued to the Council of Europe).
• EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 11034/84

  WEBER c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 46479/10

  The Court has had occasion to specify that Article 57 § 1 of the Convention requires "precision and clarity" from the Contracting States, and that by requiring them to submit a brief statement of the law concerned, this provision does not impose a "purely formal requirement" but sets out "a condition of substance which constitutes an evidential factor and contributes to legal certainty" (see Belilos v. Switzerland, 29 April 1988, §§ 55 and 59, Series A no. 132; Weber v. Switzerland, 22 May 1990, § 38, Series A no. 177; and Eisenstecken v. Austria, no. 29477/95, § 24, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

  FISCHER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 46479/10

  As regards the rule that only the laws "then in force" at the time of ratification may be the subject of a reservation, the Court has found that this requirement was not satisfied when the new legislative provision was not essentially identical to the one in force at the time of ratification, in so far as the purpose of the provision was to extend the scope of the reservation (see, for example, Fischer v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 41, Series A no. 312, concerning the introduction of a provision extending the power of the national courts to refuse to hold a hearing; see also Stallinger and Kuso v. Austria, 23 April 1997, § 48, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II).
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

  CHORHERR v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 46479/10

  This approach of indicating the laws to which the reservation applied was far more precise than what was required under the Court's minimum standards in this area, and the Government referred in this regard to Chorherr v. Austria (25 August 1993, §§ 13 and 18-20, Series A no. 266-B).
• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 56422/09

  SCHÄDLER-EBERLE v. LIECHTENSTEIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 46479/10

  The Court reiterates that in order to be valid, a reservation must satisfy the following conditions: (1) it must be made at the time the Convention or the Protocols thereto are signed or ratified; (2) it must concern a particular provision of the Convention; (3) it must relate to specific laws in force at the time of ratification; (4) it must not be a reservation of a general character; and (5) it must contain a brief statement of the law concerned (see Põder and Others v. Estonia (dec.), no. 67723/01, ECHR 2005-VIII; Liepajnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, § 45, 2 November 2010; and Schädler-Eberle v. Liechtenstein, no. 56422/09, § 60, 18 July 2013).
• EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 29477/95

  EISENSTECKEN c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 46479/10

  The Court has had occasion to specify that Article 57 § 1 of the Convention requires "precision and clarity" from the Contracting States, and that by requiring them to submit a brief statement of the law concerned, this provision does not impose a "purely formal requirement" but sets out "a condition of substance which constitutes an evidential factor and contributes to legal certainty" (see Belilos v. Switzerland, 29 April 1988, §§ 55 and 59, Series A no. 132; Weber v. Switzerland, 22 May 1990, § 38, Series A no. 177; and Eisenstecken v. Austria, no. 29477/95, § 24, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 63151/00

  STECK-RISCH AND OTHERS v. LIECHTENSTEIN
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 69966/01

  DACOSTA SILVA c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 37586/06

  LIEPAJNIEKS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 67723/01

  PÕDER ET AUTRES c. ESTONIE