Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GLASS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 16.10.1996 - 28485/95
• EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 28485/95

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 28485/95

  The Government recall that in Powell and Rayner (Eur. Court HR, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172) the Court found that Section 76 (1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 ("the 1982 Act") excludes liability in nuisance with regard to the flight of aircraft in certain circumstances, "with the result that the applicants cannot claim to have a substantive right under English law..." (p. 16, para. 36).
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 28485/95

  There was no question of an action which had commenced being prevented by the executive (see Nos. 20390/92 and 21322/93, Tinnelly and McElduff v. the United Kingdom, Comm. Report 8.4.97, pending before the European Court of Human Rights), nor did the case concern an immunity which had been developed by the courts (for a case involving an action which was brought, see the above-mentioned Osman case; for a case in which no action was in fact brought, see Eur. Court HR, Fayed v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 28485/95

  The Commission therefore concludes that, given the clarity with which the applicant's proposed action for statutory nuisance was excluded from the scope of the concept of "statutory nuisance", the claims asserted by the applicant did not concern a "right" which could arguably be said to be recognised under the law of the United Kingdom (cf. Masson and van Zon v. the Netherlands judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 327, p. 20, para. 52; Gustafsson v. Sweden judgment of 25 April 1996, Reports 1996-II, No. 9, p. 659, para. 66).

 
• EGMR, 10.07.1998 - 20390/92

  TINNELLY & SONS LTD AND OTHERS AND McELDUFF AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 28485/95

  There was no question of an action which had commenced being prevented by the executive (see Nos. 20390/92 and 21322/93, Tinnelly and McElduff v. the United Kingdom, Comm. Report 8.4.97, pending before the European Court of Human Rights), nor did the case concern an immunity which had been developed by the courts (for a case involving an action which was brought, see the above-mentioned Osman case; for a case in which no action was in fact brought, see Eur. Court HR, Fayed v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B).
• EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 23452/94

  OSMAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 28485/95

  In addition to the above requirements which must be met before Article 6 (Art. 6) applies, the Convention organs have developed case- law according to which questions of access to court may arise in connection with bars to having a determination of an issue, whether contained in procedural or substantive law (see for example No. 23452/94, Osman and Osman v. the United Kingdom, Comm. Report 1.7.97, pending before the European Court of Human Rights, and the case- law referred to there).
• EKMR, 09.10.1984 - 10475/83

  DYER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 28485/95

  Further, the present case does not concern a limitation on a general right to bring proceedings (as in the above-mentioned Osman case, or Dyer v. the United Kingdom, No. 10475/83, Dec. 9.10.84, D.R. 39, p. 246 at pp. 251- 252).
• EGMR, 10.07.1998 - 21322/93

  Auszug aus EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 28485/95

  There was no question of an action which had commenced being prevented by the executive (see Nos. 20390/92 and 21322/93, Tinnelly and McElduff v. the United Kingdom, Comm. Report 8.4.97, pending before the European Court of Human Rights), nor did the case concern an immunity which had been developed by the courts (for a case involving an action which was brought, see the above-mentioned Osman case; for a case in which no action was in fact brought, see Eur. Court HR, Fayed v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B).