Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAI, ALLMOND ET \

  Art. 9, Art. 10, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 18, Art. 14 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAI, ALLMOND AND \

  Art. 9, Art. 10, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 18, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 06.04.1995 - 25522/94

  It only applies if the individual can be said to have an "arguable claim" of a violation of the Convention (Eur. Court H.R., Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, para. 52).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EKMR, 06.04.1995 - 25522/94

  The Commission recalls that a law which confers a discretion is not in itself inconsistent with the requirement of foreseeability inherent in this concept, provided that the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise are indicated with sufficient clarity to give the individual protection against arbitrary interference ( see eg. Eur. Court H.R., Olsson judgment 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 06.04.1995 - 25522/94

  It is compatible with the requirements of foreseeability that terms which are on their face general and unlimited are explained by executive or administrative statements, since it is the provision of sufficiently precise guidance to individuals to regulate their conduct rather than the source of that guidance which is of relevance (See eg. Eur. Court H.R. Silver judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, pp. 33-34, paras. 88-89).

• EKMR, 19.10.1998 - 31416/96

  PENDRAGON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In the present case, the Commission will therefore deal with the case principally under Article 11 of the Convention, whilst having regard to Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention (see also No. 25522/94, Dec. 6.4.95, D.R. 81-A, p. 146, at p. 151).

  However, as the Commission has held on a number of occasions, public order concerns may justify a prohibition in a given case (see, for example, No. 8440/78, Dec. 16.7.80, D.R. 21, p. 138, concerning a two month ban on public processions other than customary ones in London, or No. 25522/94, Dec. 6.4.95, D.R. 81-A, p. 146, concerning a general ban on demonstrations concerning Northern Ireland in Trafalgar Square, in London).

• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 31706/10

  GÜLER ET UGUR c. TURQUIE

  Cette jurisprudence a été développée par l'ancienne Commission, qui a par exemple dit dans sa décision d'irrecevabilité dans l'affaire Milan Rai, Gill Allmond et « Negotiate Now " c. Royaume-Uni (no 25522/94, 6 avril 1995, Décisions et rapports 8I-B, p. 151): « les problèmes de la liberté de pensée et de conviction et de la liberté d'expression ne peuvent pas en l'espèce être séparés de ceux de la liberté de réunion.
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 38676/08

  DISK AND KESK v. TURKEY

  For the application of such preventive measures see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy ([GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, ECHR 2000-VIII), Christians against Racism and Fascism (cited above), Rai, Allmond and "Negotiate Now" v. the United Kingdom (no. 25522/94, Commission decision of 6 April 1995), and Schwabe and M.G. v. Germany (nos. 8080/08 and 8577/08, ECHR 2011).