Rechtsprechung
EKMR, 01.04.1992 - 16269/90 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1992,20667) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11508/85
BARFOD c. DANEMARK
Auszug aus EKMR, 01.04.1992 - 16269/90
The Commission therefore has jurisdiction to ascertain whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, a "restriction" or "penalty" is compatible with freedom of expression (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Barfod judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149, p. 12, para. 28). - EGMR, 07.10.1988 - 10519/83
SALABIAKU c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EKMR, 01.04.1992 - 16269/90
2 (Art. 6-2) requires States to confine presumptions of fact and law within reasonable limits which take into account the importance of what is at stake and maintain the rights of the defence (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Salabiaku judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A, pp. 15-18, paras. 28-30).
- EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03
KASABOVA v. BULGARIA
It noted that it existed in the legislation of most of the States signatories to the Convention (see Barril v. France, no. 32218/96, Commission decision of 30 June 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR) 90-B, p. 147, at p. 156), and expressly found that it was not as such contrary to Article 10 or Article 6 § 2 (see Lingens and Leitgeb v. Austria, no. 8803/79, Commission decision of 11 December 1981, DR 26, p. 171, at p. 181, and Tollefsen v. Norway, no. 16269/90, Commission decision of 1 April 1992, unreported).