Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 15.07.1987 - 11855/85 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1987,11928) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Partly inadmissible Partly admissible (englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
H?KANSSON ET STURESSON c. SUÈDE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Partiellement irrecevable partiellement recevable (französisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 15.07.1987 - 11855/85
- EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75
LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.07.1987 - 11855/85
The European Court of Human Rights has also adopted this view and, furthermore, recognised that the waiver could be tacit (see e.g. Eur. Court H.R., Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A No. 35, p. 25, para. 49, and Eur. Court H.R., Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, para. 59). - EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.07.1987 - 11855/85
This latter provision, in turn, in the case of Sporrong and Lönnroth (Eur. Court H.R., Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52), as well as in the case mentioned above and the case of Lithgow and others (Eur. Court H.R., Lithgow and others judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102), has been construed by the Court so as to require that, in case of an otherwise justified interference, a fair balance should be struck between the demands of the public interest concerned and the necessity of protecting the individual's fundamental rights. - EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65
RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.07.1987 - 11855/85
It has characteristics distinguishing it from the Ringeisen case (Eur. Court H.R., Ringeisen judgment of 16th July 1971, Series A no. 13), the case which would appear to be the one most in line with the present one. - EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80
LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 15.07.1987 - 11855/85
This latter provision, in turn, in the case of Sporrong and Lönnroth (Eur. Court H.R., Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52), as well as in the case mentioned above and the case of Lithgow and others (Eur. Court H.R., Lithgow and others judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102), has been construed by the Court so as to require that, in case of an otherwise justified interference, a fair balance should be struck between the demands of the public interest concerned and the necessity of protecting the individual's fundamental rights.