Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 13+10, Art. 13, Art. 14+10, Art. 14, Art. 34 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EKMR, 05.03.1990 - 14631/89

  "Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention entitles individuals to contend that a law violates their rights, in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if they run the risk of being directly affected by it...... the applicants are not inviting the court to undertake an abstract review of rules which, as such, would be incompatible with Article 25 (Art. 25)... they are challenging a legal position... which affects them personally." (Eur. Court H.R., Marckx judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 32, para. 27).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EKMR, 05.03.1990 - 14631/89

  In particular, the applicant contends that the arbitrary, unpredictable and excessive nature of jury damages awards in the United Kingdom imposes a "pall of fear and timidity... upon those who would give voice to public criticism" and creates an atmosphere in which the freedoms guaranteed by Article 10 cannot effectively survive (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 US 254 ; cf. also Eur. Court H.R., Handyside judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, pp. 22-24, paras. 48-50, Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, pp. 31, 35-37, paras. 49, 59-60, and Lingens judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, paras. 39, 43-44).
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EKMR, 05.03.1990 - 14631/89

  The Court therefore accepts that an individual may, under certain conditions, claim to be a victim of a violation occasioned by the mere existence of secret measures or of legislation permitting secret measures, without having to allege that such measures were in fact applied to him..." (Eur. Court H.R., Klass and Others judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, paras. 33 and 34).

 
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 05.03.1990 - 14631/89

  In particular, the applicant contends that the arbitrary, unpredictable and excessive nature of jury damages awards in the United Kingdom imposes a "pall of fear and timidity... upon those who would give voice to public criticism" and creates an atmosphere in which the freedoms guaranteed by Article 10 cannot effectively survive (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 US 254 ; cf. also Eur. Court H.R., Handyside judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, pp. 22-24, paras. 48-50, Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, pp. 31, 35-37, paras. 49, 59-60, and Lingens judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, paras. 39, 43-44).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 05.03.1990 - 14631/89

  The Commission recalls that for this Article to apply the claim that a provision of the Convention has been violated must be "arguable" (Eur. Court H.R., Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, paras. 52-55).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 05.03.1990 - 14631/89

  "... The maintenance in force of the impugned legislation constitutes a continuing interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life... In the personal circumstances of the applicant, the very existence of this legislation continuously and directly affects his private life...: either he respects the law and refrains from engaging - even in private with consenting male partners - in prohibited sexual acts to which he is disposed by reason of his homosexual tendencies, or he commits such acts and thereby becomes liable to criminal prosecution." (Eur. Court H.R., Dudgeon case of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 18, para. 41; Eur. Court H.R., Norris judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, pp. 15-16, paras. 28-34).
• EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

  NORRIS c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 05.03.1990 - 14631/89

  "... The maintenance in force of the impugned legislation constitutes a continuing interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life... In the personal circumstances of the applicant, the very existence of this legislation continuously and directly affects his private life...: either he respects the law and refrains from engaging - even in private with consenting male partners - in prohibited sexual acts to which he is disposed by reason of his homosexual tendencies, or he commits such acts and thereby becomes liable to criminal prosecution." (Eur. Court H.R., Dudgeon case of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 18, para. 41; Eur. Court H.R., Norris judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, pp. 15-16, paras. 28-34).