Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 12917/19, 26857/19 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2022,9137) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BUTTET v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
BUTTET v. THE UNITED KINGDOM and 1 other application
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EuGH, 19.07.2012 - C-154/11
Ein fremder Staat kann sich gegenüber der arbeitsrechtlichen Klage eines …
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 12917/19
Ahmed Mahamdia v. People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (Case C-154/11 ECLI:EU:C:2012:491) 49. Mr Mahamdia, who had both Algerian and German nationality, was employed as a driver in the Algerian embassy in Berlin. - EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94
WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 12917/19
A limitation of the right of access to a court will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 59, ECHR 1999-I; T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28945/95, § 98, 10 May 2001; and Fogarty v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 37112/97, § 33, 21 November 2001). - EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 28945/95
T.P. ET K.M. c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 12917/19
A limitation of the right of access to a court will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 59, ECHR 1999-I; T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28945/95, § 98, 10 May 2001; and Fogarty v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 37112/97, § 33, 21 November 2001). - EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 18059/06
WALTER v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 12917/19
As the applicant has no "arguable claim" of a violation of his rights under Article 6 § 1, read alone or together with Article 14 of the Convention, his complaint under Article 13 of the Convention is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention (see, amongst many other authorities, Walter v. Italy (dec.), no. 18059/06, 11 July 2006) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. - EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 16874/12
NDAYEGAMIYE-MPORAMAZINA c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 12917/19
The Court has acknowledged that Article 11(2)(d) of the Draft Articles does not fully correspond to Article 11(2)(e) of the 2004 Convention; insofar as relevant for the case at hand, Article 11(2)(d) of the Draft Articles allows a State to invoke immunity from jurisdiction where the claimant is one of its nationals (see paragraph 40 above), while Article 11(2)(e) of the 2004 UN Convention allows a state to invoke immunity where the claimant is one of its nationals when the proceeding was instituted, unless this person has permanent residence in the State of the forum (see paragraph 42 above; see also Ndayegamiye-Mporamazina v. Switzerland, no. 16874/12, §§ 62-63, 5 February 2019).