Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BURTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 25, Art. 25 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 10.09.1996 - 31600/96

  Insofar as the applicant complains that she has not been able to return to living in a caravan due to a failure of the local authority to provide a site or an alternative mobile home, the Commission recalls that although the essential object of Article 8 (Art. 8) is to protect against arbitrary interference by public authorities, there may in addition be positive obligations inherent in an effective "respect" for family life (see eg. Eur. Court H.R., Marckx judgment of 13 June 1979 Series A no. 31 p. 15, para. 31).
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 10.09.1996 - 31600/96

  The Commission recalls that Article 14 (Art. 14) protects individuals placed in analogous situations from any discrimination in the enjoyment of the substantive rights set out in the Convention and Protocols (see eg. Eur. Court H.R. Van der Mussele judgment of 21 November 1982, Series A no. 70).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 10.09.1996 - 31600/96

  The Commission recalls that Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention requires a remedy in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (Eur. Court H.R., Powell and Rayner judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p.14, para. 31).

• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 26828/06

  MAKUC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  In so far as the applicants complain that they do not have a home owing to a failure of the national authorities to provide them one, the Court recalls that although the essential object of Article 8 is to protect against arbitrary interference by public authorities, there may in addition be positive obligations inherent in an effective "respect" for family life (see, mutatis mutandis, Burton v. The United Kingdom, no. 31600/96, Commission decision of 10 September 1996, unpublished).
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 19841/06

  BAGDONAVICIUS ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Citant la décision Burton c. Royaume Uni (no 31600/96, décision de la Commission du 10 septembre 1996), le Gouvernement soutient que l'article 8 de la Convention ne peut pas être interprété comme imposant l'obligation d'accorder aux gens du voyage des emplacements pour qu'ils puissent s'installer sur des terrains détenus par des tiers.