Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FREIE RUNDFUNK AG i Gr v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• BVerfG, 16.06.1981 - 1 BvL 89/78

  3. Rundfunkentscheidung

  Auszug aus EKMR, 04.03.1987 - 9675/82

  1 (equality before the law) of the Basic Law and therefore null and void in so far as they concerned private broadcasting (BVerfGE 57, 295).

  In its judgment of 16 June 1981 the Federal Constitutional Court had expressly left this question open (BVerfGE 57, 295/318).

  The Commission further notes that the Federal Constitutional Court, when acting in this case for the second time in its judgment of 16 June 1981 (BVerfGE 57, 295), declared unconstitutional, and therefore null and void, the relevant provisions of the Saarland Broadcasting Act of 1967.

• BVerfG, 24.03.1976 - 1 BvL 7/74

  Anforderungen an eine Richtervorlage nach Art. 100 Abs. 1 GG

  Auszug aus EKMR, 04.03.1987 - 9675/82

  The Federal Constitutional Court having declared this reference inadmissible on 24 March 1976 (BVerfGE 42, 42), the Administrative Court of Appeal, by judgment of 20 May 1976, ordered the Land Government to determine the applicant company's request for a broadcasting licence; this order was based on the assumption that the relevant provisions of the Broadcasting Act were valid.

  The Commission notes that the Federal Constitutional Court, when acting in this case for the first time in its decision of 24 March 1976 (BVerfGE 42, 42), declared inadmissible the request of the Administrative Court for a ruling under Article 100 of the Basic Law.

• BVerfG, 06.04.1976 - 2 BvL 10/75

  Keine Richterablehnung im Normenkontrollverfahren

  Auszug aus EKMR, 04.03.1987 - 9675/82

  The Federal Constitutional Court characterised such proceedings as follows (BVerfGE 42, 90/91):.

  It here notes the Federal Constitutional Court's statement that proceedings under Article 100 of the Basic Law "serve the constitutional court's guarantee that objective law shall be observed" and that they "are not an instrument for the individual to obtain a legal remedy" (BVerfGE 42, 90/91).

 
• EKMR, 16.12.1961 - 712/60

  RETIMAG S.A. contre la REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 04.03.1987 - 9675/82

  (No. 712/60, Retimag v. Federal Republic of Germany, Dec. 16.12.61, Collection 8 pp. 29, 38 = Yearbook 4 pp. 384, 400 with further references; Eur. Court H.R., Van Oosterwijck judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A No. 40, paras. 26 et seq.).

  In any case, it is not for the Commission to rule on that question - which has not yet been settled in German law - but the Commission is obliged to confine itself to recording that the applicant company has not clearly established that it was impossible for it to appeal to the Constitutional Court on the grounds of an alleged violation of the constitutional duty, under Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention, to enact a new broadcasting act (cf. mutatis mutandis No. 712/60, Dec. 16.12.61, Collection 8 pp. 29, 41 = Yearbook 4 pp. 384, 406).

• EKMR, 13.12.1979 - 7987/77

  COMPANY X. v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 04.03.1987 - 9675/82

  The Commission refers, on this point, to its constant jurisprudence (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. 8417/78, Dec. 4.5.79, D.R. 16 pp. 200 (207); No. 7987/77, Dec.
• EKMR, 08.02.1973 - 5258/71

  X. v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EKMR, 04.03.1987 - 9675/82

  The Commission refers, on this point, to its constant jurisprudence (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. 8417/78, Dec. 4.5.79, D.R. 16 pp. 200 (207); No. 7987/77, Dec.
• EKMR, 07.12.1982 - 9578/81

  X. c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 04.03.1987 - 9675/82

  The applicant company accepts that the defendant State should be given the opportunity of having possible violations of the law examined by domestic authorities and of remedying them, if necessary, before being called to account by an international instance (No. 9578/81, Dec. 7.12.82, D.R. 31 pp. 217/218 = EuGRZ 1983 p. 559).
• EKMR, 04.07.1983 - 10000/82

  H. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 04.03.1987 - 9675/82

  31, 45; No. 10000/82, Dec.
• EKMR, 04.05.1979 - 8417/78

  X. v. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 04.03.1987 - 9675/82

  The Commission refers, on this point, to its constant jurisprudence (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. 8417/78, Dec. 4.5.79, D.R. 16 pp. 200 (207); No. 7987/77, Dec.
• BVerfG, 14.01.1981 - 1 BvR 612/72

  Fluglärm

  Auszug aus EKMR, 04.03.1987 - 9675/82

  In the light of the statutory position indicated it is obvious that consideration must be given not to a case of absolute omission on the part of the legislature but rather to one of inaction in regard to a constitutional duty subsequently to improve provisions that were originally to be seen as being in conformity with the constitution (see, in particular, BVerfGE 56, 54 - 72, 78 et seq.).".
• BVerfG, 26.03.1963 - 1 BvR 451/62

  Mangelnde Rechtswegerschöpfung - Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde
• BVerfG, 13.11.1979 - 1 BvR 631/78

  Hausarbeitstag
• GemSOGB, 06.02.1973 - GmS-OGB 1/72

  Beteiligte an dem Verfahren vor dem Gemeinsamen Senat der obersten Gerichtshöfe …

• EKMR, 12.05.1988 - 11071/84

  RADETZKY v. AUTRICHE

  It follows that the applicant has not shown that a complaint to the Constitutional Court on the ground of an alleged violation of his constitutional rights under Article 5 of the Convention would have been an ineffective remedy (cf. mutatis mutandis No. 712/60, Dec. 16.12.61, Retimag AG v. Federal Republic of Germany, Collection 8 pp. 29, 41 = Yearbook 4 pp. 384, 406, and No. 9675/82, Freie Rundfunk AG i. Gr. v. Federal Republic of Germany, Dec. 4.3.87, para. 5 of The Law, to be published in D.R.).