Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 04.03.1998 - 34180/96 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1998,33605) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
HAAS AND HAASOVA v. THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83
OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)
Auszug aus EKMR, 04.03.1998 - 34180/96
In determining whether an interference was "necessary in a democratic society" the Convention organs have to take into account that a margin of appreciation is left to the Contracting States (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Olsson v. Sweden judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, pp. 31-31, paras. 67-68). - EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EKMR, 04.03.1998 - 34180/96
This implies that a fair balance must be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirement to protect the individual's fundamental rights, which balance would not be found if the individual was found to have bornean excessive burden (see Eur. Court HR, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, pp. 26-28, paras. 69- 73). - EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
KRUSLIN c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EKMR, 04.03.1998 - 34180/96
2 of the Law on Extrajudicial Rehabilitation and it sees no reason why this basis should not be considered as being accessible, foreseeable and in accordance with the rule of law (see Eur. Court HR, Kruslin v. France judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 20, para. 27). - EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86
FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)
Auszug aus EKMR, 04.03.1998 - 34180/96
The third rule, stated in the second paragraph, recognises that Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest (see Eur. Court HR, Fredin v. Sweden judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192, p. 14, para. 41).