Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 14.07.1987 - 10594/83 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MUNRO v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14+6 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MUNRO c. ROYAUME-UNI
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14+6 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
Irrecevable (französisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (14) Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EKMR, 10.07.1986 - 10871/84
W. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 14.07.1987 - 10594/83
On 7 March 1985 the Commission resumed its examination of the admissibility of the application which it again decided to adjourn pending the receipt of the parties' observations in Application No. 10871/84 (Dec. 10.7.86 unpublished).On 11 October 1986 the Commission decided to cancel the hearing which it had proposed to hold on 12 November 1986 in the light of its decision on the admissibility of Application No. 10871/84.
(c) The respondent Government's comments on admissibility in the light of the Commission's decision in Application No. 10871/84 (Dec. 10.7.86 unpublished).
The respondent Government submit that in Application No. 10871/84, the Commission was concerned with precisely the same issue under Article 6 para.
(c) The applicant's comments on admissibility in the light of the Commission's decision in Application No. 10871/84 (Dec. 10.7.86 unpublished).
The Commission in its decision on the admissibility of Application No. 10871/84 refers to the fact that the Court in the Airey case recognised that the means by which a State ensures effective access to civil courts is within its margin of appreciation (paragraph 26).
(iii) The present application compared with Application No. 10871/84.
1 in Application No. 10871/84 seems to have been that, as a matter of fact, that case could be distinguished from the Airey case because that applicant was not denied effective access to the court in the same way as Mrs.
This argument appears to have been accepted by the Commission in its decision in Application No. 10871/84.
Airey and is very different from Application No. 10871/84.
Unlike the applicant in Application No. 10871/84, the present applicant has received no benefit whatever from the availability under United Kingdom law of a cause of action in defamation.
The Commission recalls its recent decision on the admissibility of Application No. 10871/84 (Dec. 10.7.86 unpublished) in which the lack of legal aid in defamation proceedings was also at issue.
- EKMR, 10.07.1980 - 8158/78
X. v. the UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 14.07.1987 - 10594/83
Following the decision of the Court in the Airey case (Eur. Court H.R., Airey judgment of 9 October 1979 Series A no. 32) and the Commission's decision on admissibility in X v. the United Kingdom (No. 8158/78, Dec. 10.7.80, D.R. 21 p. 95) the respondent Government contend that Article 6 para.The aim of this provision, to ensure that the limited funds available for legal aid are not squandered on undeserving applicants, was recognised in Application No. 8158/78 (supra) as legitimate both because it would be unreasonable for a legally aided party to exploit that financial advantage against an unaided opponent and because the result is to discourage further litigation which would overburden the courts.
The Commission notes that even where legal aid may be available for certain types of civil action, it is reasonable to impose conditions on its availability involving, inter alia, the financial situation of the litigant or the prospects of success of the proceedings (cf. No. 8158/78, Dec. 10.7.80, D.R. 21 p. 95).
The applicant complains that the Government's decision to deny legal aid for all defamation proceedings is "arbitrary" and thus contrary to the criteria laid down in the Commission's decision in X. v the United Kingdom (No. 8158/78, Dec. 10.7.80, D.R. 21 p. 95).
"Even where legal aid may be available for certain types of civil action, it is reasonable to impose conditions on its availability involving, inter alia, the financial situation of the litigant or the prospects of success of the proceedings (cf. No. 8158/78, Dec. 10.7.80, D.R. 21 p. 95).
- EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73
AIREY v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EKMR, 14.07.1987 - 10594/83
Following the decision of the Court in the Airey case (Eur. Court H.R., Airey judgment of 9 October 1979 Series A no. 32) and the Commission's decision on admissibility in X v. the United Kingdom (No. 8158/78, Dec. 10.7.80, D.R. 21 p. 95) the respondent Government contend that Article 6 para.The applicant cites the case of Airey (Eur.Court H.R., Airey judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32) as authority for the need for legal representation in certain disputes relating to civil rights.
- EKMR, 08.03.1962 - 808/60
ISOP v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EKMR, 14.07.1987 - 10594/83
This line of case law is derived from No. 808/60, Isop v. Austria, Dec. - EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EKMR, 14.07.1987 - 10594/83
It is established, following the Golder case (Eur. Court H.R., Golder judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18), that Article 6 para. - EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79
Minelli ./. Schweiz
Auszug aus EKMR, 14.07.1987 - 10594/83
This case law was confirmed by the Court in its judgments in the Golder case (supra) and the Minelli case (Eur. Court H.R., Minelli judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62) (as also by the Commission in No. 7116/75, X. v. FRG, Dec. 4.12.76, D.R. 7 p. 91; and No. 8366/78, X. v. Luxembourg, Dec. 8.3.79, D.R. 16 p. 169). - EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
MARCKX v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EKMR, 14.07.1987 - 10594/83
However, in its judgment in the Airey case (Eur. Court H.R., Airey judgment of 9 October 1979 Series A no. 31) the Court decided that the right of access to court guaranteed by Article 6 para. - EKMR, 04.10.1976 - 7116/75
X. c. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
Auszug aus EKMR, 14.07.1987 - 10594/83
This case law was confirmed by the Court in its judgments in the Golder case (supra) and the Minelli case (Eur. Court H.R., Minelli judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62) (as also by the Commission in No. 7116/75, X. v. FRG, Dec. 4.12.76, D.R. 7 p. 91; and No. 8366/78, X. v. Luxembourg, Dec. 8.3.79, D.R. 16 p. 169). - EKMR, 08.03.1979 - 8366/78
X. v. LUXEMBOURG
Auszug aus EKMR, 14.07.1987 - 10594/83
This case law was confirmed by the Court in its judgments in the Golder case (supra) and the Minelli case (Eur. Court H.R., Minelli judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62) (as also by the Commission in No. 7116/75, X. v. FRG, Dec. 4.12.76, D.R. 7 p. 91; and No. 8366/78, X. v. Luxembourg, Dec. 8.3.79, D.R. 16 p. 169).
- EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01
STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Ils n'ont dans aucun de ces cas constaté de violation de l'article 6 § 1 (Winer, décision précitée ; Munro c. Royaume-Uni, no 10594/83, décision de la Commission du 14 juillet 1987, DR 52, p. 158 ; H.S. et D.M. c. Royaume-Uni, no 21325/93, décision de la Commission du 5 mai 1993, non publiée ; Stewart-Brady c. Royaume-Uni, nos 27436/95 et 28406/95, décision de la Commission du 2 juillet 1997, DR 90-B, p. 45 ; McVicar c. Royaume-Uni, no 46311/99, CEDH 2002-III ; et A. c. Royaume-Uni, no 35373/97, CEDH 2002-X). - EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 68416/01
STEEL AND MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
The Convention organs had considered the non-availability of legal aid in defamation cases under English law in six cases, and had never found it to breach Article 6 § 1 (see the Winer case, cited above; Munro v. the United Kingdom, no. 10594/83, Commission decision of 14 July 1987; H.S. and D.M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 21325/93, Commission decision of 5 May 1993; Stewart-Brady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 27436/95 and 28406/95, Commission decision of 2 July 1997; McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, ECHR 2002; A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35373/97, ECHR 2002). - EGMR, 25.08.2005 - 35512/04
C. B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
The question whether the provision of legal aid, or any other form of funding or reimbursement of legal costs, is necessary for a fair hearing must be determined on the basis of the particular facts and circumstances of each case and will depend inter alia upon the importance of what is at stake for the applicant in the proceedings, the complexity of the relevant law and procedure and the applicant's capacity to represent him or herself effectively (Airey, § 26; McVicar, §§ 48 and 50; P., C. and S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 56547/00, § 91, ECHR 2002-VI; and also Munro v. the United Kingdom, no. 10594/83, Commission decision of 14 July 1987, Decisions and Reports 52, p. 158 and most recently Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 61, ECHR 2005-...).
- EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 27554/95
COXHEAD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Moreover, even where legal aid may be available for certain types of civil action, it is reasonable to impose conditions on its availability involving, inter alia, the financial situation of the litigant or the prospects of success of the proceedings (No. 8158/78, Dec. 10.7.80, D.R. 21, p. 95; No. 10871/84, Dec. 10.7.86, D.R. 48, p. 154; No. 10594/83, Dec. 14.7.87, D.R. 52, p. 158). - EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 27723/95
DOUGLAS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Moreover, even where legal aid may be available for certain types of civil action, it is reasonable to impose conditions on its availability involving, inter alia, the financial situation of the litigant or the prospects of success of the proceedings (No. 8158/78, Dec. 10.7.80, D.R. 21, p. 95; No. 10871/84, Dec. 10.7.86, D.R. 48, p. 154; No. 10594/83, Dec. 14.7.87, D.R. 52, p. 158). - EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 27821/95
SINCLAIR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Moreover, even where legal aid may be available for certain types of civil action, it is reasonable to impose conditions on its availability involving, inter alia, the financial situation of the litigant or the prospects of success of the proceedings (No. 8158/78, Dec. 10.7.80, D.R. 21, p. 95; No. 10871/84, Dec. 10.7.86, D.R. 48, p. 154; No. 10594/83, Dec. 14.7.87, D.R. 52, p. 158). - EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 28156/95
SEARLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Moreover, even where legal aid may be available for certain types of civil action, it is reasonable to impose conditions on its availability involving, inter alia, the financial situation of the litigant or the prospects of success of the proceedings (No. 8158/78, Dec. 10.7.80, D.R. 21, p. 95; No. 10871/84, Dec. 10.7.86, D.R. 48, p. 154; No. 10594/83, Dec. 14.7.87, D.R. 52, p. 158). - EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 28639/95
WOODLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Moreover, even where legal aid may be available for certain types of civil action, it is reasonable to impose conditions on its availability involving, inter alia, the financial situation of the litigant or the prospects of success of the proceedings (No. 8158/78, Dec. 10.7.80, D.R. 21, p. 95; No. 10871/84, Dec. 10.7.86, D.R. 48, p. 154; No. 10594/83, Dec. 14.7.87, D.R. 52, p. 158). - EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 28641/95
TAYLOR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 18.05.1995 - 23789/94
BELANGENVERENIGING EX-BESTUURSLEDEN EN EX-VERENIGINGSRAADSLEDEN VAN DE VERONICA …
- EKMR, 12.10.1992 - 17175/90
D.S. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 09.11.1987 - 11790/85
HARRISON v. UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 20.05.1997 - 31106/96
MARANGOS v. CYPRUS
- EKMR, 05.05.1993 - 21325/93
H.S. AND D.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM