Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BROCK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.01.1996 - 26279/95

  Insofar as the applicant complains about the consequences for her of the application of the legislation, the Commission recalls that Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention does not require a remedy in domestic law for all claims alleging a breach of the Convention; the claim must be an arguable one (Eur. Court H.R., Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, para. 52).
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.01.1996 - 26279/95

  Furthermore, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law; the scope of this margin will vary according to the circumstances, the subject matter and the background (Eur. Court H.R., Lithgow judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, pp. 66-67, para. 177).
• EGMR, 07.10.1988 - 10519/83

  SALABIAKU c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.01.1996 - 26279/95

  The Court, in the above-mentioned judgments, also went on to consider whether the application of the relevant presumptions was compatible with the presumption of innocence (Eur. Court H.R., Salabiaku judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A, pp. 14-18, paras. 26-30 and Pham Hoang judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 243, pp. 21-22, para. 33).

 
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.01.1996 - 26279/95

  This implies that a fair balance must be struck between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirement to protect the individual's fundamental rights, which balance would not be found if the individual was found to have borne an excessive burden (Eur. Court H.R., Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, pp. 26-28, paras. 69-73).
• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 11581/85

  DARBY v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.01.1996 - 26279/95

  However, such a difference in treatment will only be discriminatory if it has "no objective and reasonable justification" namely, if it does not pursue a "legitimate aim" and if there is no "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (see, for example, Eur. Court H.R., Darby judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187, p. 12, para. 31).
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13191/87

  PHAM HOANG c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.01.1996 - 26279/95

  The Court, in the above-mentioned judgments, also went on to consider whether the application of the relevant presumptions was compatible with the presumption of innocence (Eur. Court H.R., Salabiaku judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A, pp. 14-18, paras. 26-30 and Pham Hoang judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 243, pp. 21-22, para. 33).