Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 25155/94 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1996,25982) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75
LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 25155/94
The Commission recalls the established case-law according to which public-law institutions cannot be considered as associations within the meaning of Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention (cf., for example, Eur. Court H.R., Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, pp. 26-27, paras. 64-65). - EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89
SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 25155/94
Any such waiver must, however, be made in an unequivocal manner and must not run counter to any important public interest (cf., Eur. Court H.R. Schuler-Zgraggen judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, pp. 19-20, para. 58). - EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80
LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 25155/94
The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and are therefore to be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see, for example, Eur. Court H.R., Lithgow and Others judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 46, para. 106). - EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80
VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 25155/94
On the other hand, it has no independent existence since it has effect solely in relation to "the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms" safeguarded by the other substantive provisions (see Eur. Court H.R., Van der Mussele judgment of 29 September 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 22, para. 43). - EGMR, 19.07.1995 - 17506/90
KEROJÄRVI v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 25155/94
Consequently, the Commission finds that the proceedings before the Board and the Supreme Administrative Court, taken as a whole, were such as to allow proper participation of the applicant association (cf., Eur. Court H.R., Kerojärvi judgment of 19 July 1995, Series A no. 322, para. 42).