Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  L.F. v. IRELAND

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 19, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 28154/95

  Secondly and as to the applicant's allegations of bias on the part of the domestic courts due to her medical condition, the Commission recalls that a tribunal must be objectively and subjectively impartial, the subjective impartiality of a judge being assumed unless there is proof to the contrary (see, for example, Eur. Court HR, Padovani v. Italy judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, paras. 25-26).
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 28154/95

  As regards her specific submissions as to procedural irregularities, the Commission recalls that its task is to assess the overall fairness of the proceedings as a whole (see, for example, Eur. Court HR, Dombo Beheer B. v. the Netherlands judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, p. 19, para. 31).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 28154/95

  It only applies if the individual can be said to have an "arguable claim" of a violation of the Convention (Eur. Court HR, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, para. 52).

 
• EGMR, 22.06.1989 - 11373/85

  ERIKSSON c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 28154/95

  1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention since the purpose and effect of those decisions was to deny the applicant access to her children (Eur. Court HR, Eriksson v. Sweden judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A no. 156, pp. 27, 59).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 28154/95

  The Commission's task is to examine whether the reasons adduced to justify the interference at issue are "relevant and sufficient" (Eur. Court HR, Olsson v. Sweden judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p. 32, para. 68).
• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 11581/85

  DARBY v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 28154/95

  The Commission recalls that Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention protects against a discriminatory difference in treatment of persons in analogous positions, which treatment is considered discriminatory if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the legitimate aim sought to be realised (Eur. Court HR, Darby v. Sweden judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187, p. 12, para. 31).