Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  McLAUGHLIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.05.1994 - 18759/91

  He refers in particular to the narrow margin of appreciation required by the Court in Castells v. Spain (Eur. Court H.R., Castells judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236), and again refers to the fact that he is caught by the notices whenever he speaks as a councillor, because he is a Sinn Fein councillor.
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.05.1994 - 18759/91

  2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention (Eur. Court H.R., Silver judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 33, para. 85).
• EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79

  Inze ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.05.1994 - 18759/91

  The difference in treatment must pursue a legitimate aim and there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see eg. Eur. Court H.R., Inze judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 18, para. 41).

 
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.05.1994 - 18759/91

  Moreover, the European Court of Human Rights has pointed to the link between the notion of "arguable claim" in its own case-law and the notion of "manifestly ill-founded" in Article 27 (Art. 27) of the Convention (Eur. Court H.R., Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, paras. 52 and 54).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.05.1994 - 18759/91

  Thus a norm must be formulated with sufficient precision; the phrase "in accordance with the law", or the equivalent phrase "prescribed by law", does not merely refer back to domestic law, but also relates to the quality of the law, and a law conferring a discretion is not in itself inconsistent with the requirement of foreseeability provided that the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise are indicated with sufficient clarity (Eur. Court H.R., Olsson judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p. 30, para.
• EGMR, 20.04.1993 - 14327/88

  SIBSON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.05.1994 - 18759/91

  48; Brannigan and McBride judgment of 26 May 1993, Series A no. 258, p. 50, para.
• EGMR, 05.10.1988 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.05.1994 - 18759/91

  The European Court of Human Rights has referred to the special problems involved in combating terrorism (Eur. Court H.R., Brogan and others judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145, p. 33, para.
• EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 12726/87

  AUTRONIC AG v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.05.1994 - 18759/91

  The Commission recalls that Article 10 (Art. 10) rights can be interfered with by restrictions on the manner of conveying information, as well as on the content of the information (Nos. 11553/85 and 11658/85, Dec. 9.3.87, D.R. 51, p. 136, 144; Eur. Court H.R., Autronic judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 178, p. 23, para. 47).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.05.1994 - 18759/91

  The Government submit that the Licence and Agreement of 1981 with the BBC and the Broadcasting Act 1981 in the case of the IBA provide the necessary regulatory background to the notices, and that, when taken together with the explanatory letter from the Home Office, the directions fall within the concept of "law" as defined by the European Court of Human Rights in the Sunday Times case (Eur. Court H.R., Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 31, para. 49).