Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  H.S. AND D.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EKMR, 05.05.1993 - 21325/93

  The means by which a State does so is within its margin of appreciation (Eur. Court H.R., Airey judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 15, para. 26).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 05.05.1993 - 21325/93

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention guarantees a fair hearing in the determination of civil rights and obligations and, implicitly, access to court (Eur. Court H.R., Golder judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18).
• EKMR, 14.07.1987 - 10594/83

  MUNRO c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 05.05.1993 - 21325/93

  However the Commission has also recognised above (p.4) that it is reasonable, given the limited financial resources of most civil legal aid schemes, to establish priorities which may exclude defamation litigation, given its risky nature and the difficulty in accurately predicting its outcome (No. 10594/83, Munro v. the United Kingdom, Dec. 14.7.87, D.R. 52 p. 158, at p. 165).

 
• EKMR, 10.07.1986 - 10871/84

  W. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 05.05.1993 - 21325/93

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention" (No. 10871/84, Winer v. the United Kingdom, Dec. 10.7.86, D.R. 48 p. 154).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 05.05.1993 - 21325/93

  However, the case-law of the Commission establishes that Article 13 (Art. 13) does not require a remedy in domestic law for all claims alleging a breach of the Convention; the claim must be an arguable one (Eur. Court H.R., Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, para. 52).
• EKMR, 10.07.1980 - 8158/78

  X. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 05.05.1993 - 21325/93

  "The Commission notes that even where legal aid may be available for certain types of civil action, it is reasonable to impose conditions on its availability involving, inter alia, the financial situation of the litigant or the prospects of success of the proceedings (cf. No. 8158/78, Dec. 10.7.80, D.R. 21 p. 95).

• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Ils n'ont dans aucun de ces cas constaté de violation de l'article 6 § 1 (Winer, décision précitée ; Munro c. Royaume-Uni, no 10594/83, décision de la Commission du 14 juillet 1987, DR 52, p. 158 ; H.S. et D.M. c. Royaume-Uni, no 21325/93, décision de la Commission du 5 mai 1993, non publiée ; Stewart-Brady c. Royaume-Uni, nos 27436/95 et 28406/95, décision de la Commission du 2 juillet 1997, DR 90-B, p. 45 ; McVicar c. Royaume-Uni, no 46311/99, CEDH 2002-III ; et A. c. Royaume-Uni, no 35373/97, CEDH 2002-X).
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 68416/01

  STEEL AND MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Convention organs had considered the non-availability of legal aid in defamation cases under English law in six cases, and had never found it to breach Article 6 § 1 (see the Winer case, cited above; Munro v. the United Kingdom, no. 10594/83, Commission decision of 14 July 1987; H.S. and D.M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 21325/93, Commission decision of 5 May 1993; Stewart-Brady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 27436/95 and 28406/95, Commission decision of 2 July 1997; McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, ECHR 2002; A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35373/97, ECHR 2002).