Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 31006/96 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1997,33514) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
WEBB v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 31006/96
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, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80
LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 31006/96
In this assessment of whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment, Contracting States enjoy a margin of appreciation which will vary according to the circumstances, subject-matter and background (see eg. Eur. Court HR, Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, pp. 66-67, para. 177). - EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83
OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)
Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 31006/96
Further, in determining whether an interference is justified the Commission and Court will take into account that a margin of appreciation is left to the Contracting States, which are in principle in a better position to make an initial assessment of the necessity of a given interference (see eg. Eur. Court HR, Olsson v. Sweden judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p. 32, para. 68). - EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80
VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 31006/96
It must be established that other persons in an analogous or relevantly similar situation enjoy preferential treatment and that there is no reasonable or objective justification for this distinction (see eg. Eur. Court HR, Van der Mussele v. Belgium judgment of 21 November 1982, Series A no. 70 and Fredin v. Sweden (No. 1) judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192, p. 19 para. - EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86
FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)
Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 31006/96
It must be established that other persons in an analogous or relevantly similar situation enjoy preferential treatment and that there is no reasonable or objective justification for this distinction (see eg. Eur. Court HR, Van der Mussele v. Belgium judgment of 21 November 1982, Series A no. 70 and Fredin v. Sweden (No. 1) judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192, p. 19 para.