Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BUITRAGO MONTES AND PEREZ LOPEZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. ... 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. e, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EKMR, 12.03.1990 - 14170/88

  HARWARD v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.12.1992 - 18077/91

  With regard to the trial judge's supplementary report, it follows from the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal of 5 April 1990 rejecting the applicants' appeals against conviction that the applicants' counsel had had every opportunity to familiarise themselves with the report prior to the hearing, and there is no indication that the applicants were unable to communicate freely with their lawyers in order to discuss the content of the report (cf. No. 14170/88, Dec. 12.3.90, unpublished).
• EKMR, 06.07.1989 - 14067/88

  D. S. v. UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.12.1992 - 18077/91

  In these circumstances, the Commission does not consider that the rights of the defence were prejudiced by the misdirection of the trial judge (cf., mutatis mutandis, N° 14067/88, Dec. 6.7.89, unpublished).
• EKMR, 08.02.1973 - 5258/71

  X. v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.12.1992 - 18077/91

  The Commission refers, on this point, to its established case-law (see e.g. No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3 pp. 222, 236; No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43 pp. 71, 77; No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 p. 31 at p. 45).

 
• EKMR, 18.12.1963 - 1488/62

  X. contre la BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.12.1992 - 18077/91

  Finally, with regard to the applicants' complaint under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention that no action was taken in respect of their allegations of perjury, the Commission recalls that the Convention does not guarantee a right to have criminal proceedings instituted against a third person (cf. N° 1488/62, Collection 13 p. 93).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.12.1992 - 18077/91

  3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) (see Eur. Court H.R., Kamasinski Case, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, p. 38, para. 85).
• EKMR, 13.12.1979 - 7987/77

  COMPANY X. v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.12.1992 - 18077/91

  The Commission refers, on this point, to its established case-law (see e.g. No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3 pp. 222, 236; No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43 pp. 71, 77; No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 p. 31 at p. 45).
• EKMR, 08.12.1979 - 8022/77

  X., Y. and Z. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.12.1992 - 18077/91

  Furthermore, it observes that the applicants' separation from their families is the direct and inevitable result of their conviction of serious crimes in the United Kingdom (cf. Nos. 8022/77, 8025/77 and 8027/77, Comm. Report 18.3.81, D.R. 25 p. 15).
• EKMR, 14.05.1977 - 6870/75

  Y. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.12.1992 - 18077/91

  Therefore, refusal of access to the telephone in prison does not in itself amount to an interference with the applicants' right to respect for their family life as protected by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, since in the present case the applicants' classification as category A prisoners is not shown to have impeded unreasonably and arbitrarily their ability to remain in contact with their families (cf., mutatis mutandis, N° 6870/75, Dec. 14.5.77, D.R. 10 p. 37).