Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GINIKANWA v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GINIKANWA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

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

• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.03.1988 - 12502/86

  1 (Art. 6-1) themselves or they are subject to subsequent control by a judicial body with full jurisdiction providing the necessary guarantees (Eur. Court H.R., Albert and Le Compte judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58 para. 29).

  1 (Art. 6-1) if the domestic law so permits and this is in accordance with the will of the person concerned..." (Eur Court H.R., Albert and Le Compte judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58 para. 35).

• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.03.1988 - 12502/86

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention has been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in such cases as Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium to mean, first, that the evidence must disclose the existence of a "contestation" or dispute, secondly, that the dispute must relate to civil rights and obligations or, in other words, that the result of the proceedings must be directly decisive for such rights and obligations (Eur. Court H.R., Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 1 October 1980, Series A no. 43 paras. 41-50).

  1 (Art. 6-1) may, therefore, be applicable to such disciplinary proceedings (Eur. Court H.R., König judgment of 23 April 1977, Series A no. 27 paras. 86-95, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 1 October 1980, Series A no. 43 paras. 41-50 and the H judgment of 30 November 1987 paras. 37-48).

• EKMR, 13.07.1983 - 9502/81

  S. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.03.1988 - 12502/86

  The historical origins and legal basis for the disciplinary arrangements of the Bar of England and Wales were considered by the Commission in the cases of S. v. the United Kingdom (No. 9502/81, Dec. 13.7.83, D.R. 34 p. 102) and P. v. the United Kingdom 12502/86.

 
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.03.1988 - 12502/86

  1 (Art. 6-1) may, therefore, be applicable to such disciplinary proceedings (Eur. Court H.R., König judgment of 23 April 1977, Series A no. 27 paras. 86-95, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 1 October 1980, Series A no. 43 paras. 41-50 and the H judgment of 30 November 1987 paras. 37-48).
• EKMR, 13.03.1986 - 11456/85

  PRINCE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.03.1988 - 12502/86

  (No. 11456/85, Dec. 13.3.86 unpublished).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.03.1988 - 12502/86

  Accordingly the Court does not attach importance here to the fact that contempt of court is a creature of the common law and not of legislation" (Eur. Court H.R., Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30 para. 47).

• EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 30234/96

  EVEREST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention was applicable (see, mutatis mutandis, No. 12502/86, Dec. 9.3.88, D.R. 55, p. 251).

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (No. 12502/86, loc. cit.).

• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 36181/05

  GALINA KOSTOVA v. BULGARIA

  That right can, in view of its potential pecuniary implications, be regarded as a "civil" one (see, mutatis mutandis, H. v. Belgium, cited above, §§ 45-48, and Ginikanwa v. the United Kingdom, no. 12502/86, Commission decision of 9 March 1988, Decisions and Reports (DR) 55, p. 251, at p. 258, in relation to lawyers in private practice).