Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BATES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.01.1996 - 26280/95

  2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention (Eur. Court H. R., Golder judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, para. 36).
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.01.1996 - 26280/95

  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, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.01.1996 - 26280/95

  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 (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, pp. 26-28, paras. 69-73).

 
• EGMR, 07.10.1988 - 10519/83

  SALABIAKU c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.01.1996 - 26280/95

  2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention given by the Court in the Salabiaku judgment and recently confirmed in the Pham Hoang judgment (Eur. Court H.R., Salabiaku judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A and Pham Hoang judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 243), the Commission does not consider that it is necessary, in the circumstances of the present case, to resort to any supplementary means of interpretation of Article 6 para.
• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 11581/85

  DARBY v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.01.1996 - 26280/95

  In this respect, the Commission notes that 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 - 26280/95

  2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention given by the Court in the Salabiaku judgment and recently confirmed in the Pham Hoang judgment (Eur. Court H.R., Salabiaku judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A and Pham Hoang judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 243), the Commission does not consider that it is necessary, in the circumstances of the present case, to resort to any supplementary means of interpretation of Article 6 para.