Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KETONEN v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EKMR, 12.10.1994 - 19760/92

  Events prior to 10 May 1990 will be taken into account merely as a background to the issues before the Commission (Eur. Court H.R., Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, para. 53).

  Court H.R., Series A no. 299-A; see also the above-mentioned Hokkanen judgment, para.

• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 12.10.1994 - 19760/92

  Leaving aside the question whether the applicants have complied with the six months' rule prescribed by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission considers that the applicants have no "arguable claim" of a breach of a violation of a substantive Convention provision which would warrant a remedy under Article 13 (Art. 13) (Eur. Court H.R., Powell and Rayner judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 20, para. 46).
• EGMR, 23.06.1994 - 16997/90

  DE MOOR c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 12.10.1994 - 19760/92

  It recalls, however, that it is normally not competent to deal with a complaint alleging that errors of law and fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or one of its Protocols, for instance in that a judgment has no legal justification and thereby violates a party's right to receive a fair trial (cf. Eur. Court H.R., De Moor judgment of 23 June 1994, Series A no. 292-A, para. 55; No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87

  B. c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 12.10.1994 - 19760/92

  In determining whether or not such an obligation exists, regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the general interest and the interests of the individual as well as to the margin of appreciation afforded to the Contracting States (Eur. Court H.R., B. v. France judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 232-C, pp. 47 et seq., paras. 44 et seq.).
• EKMR, 13.12.1979 - 7987/77

  COMPANY X. v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 12.10.1994 - 19760/92

  It recalls, however, that it is normally not competent to deal with a complaint alleging that errors of law and fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or one of its Protocols, for instance in that a judgment has no legal justification and thereby violates a party's right to receive a fair trial (cf. Eur. Court H.R., De Moor judgment of 23 June 1994, Series A no. 292-A, para. 55; No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45).
• FG Hamburg, 30.08.1989 - V 472/87

  Lohnsteuer; Durchgangszimmer kein Arbeitszimmer/Video-Recorder kein Arbeitsmittel

  Auszug aus EKMR, 12.10.1994 - 19760/92

  An appeal against a decision by another authority may be lodged with a County Administrative Court (lääninoikeus, länsrätt) (section 8, subsection. 1, as amended by Act no. 472/87).