Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HILDEBRAND v. GERMANY

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

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 31513/96

  The Commission finds that the applicant's submissions concern a regulation of the use of his property (cf. Eur. Court HR, Handyside v. United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 30, para. 63), which is covered by the above considerations regarding his right for respect of his private life and home, as guaranteed by Article 8 (Art. 8).
• EKMR, 13.05.1986 - 11058/84

  F. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 31513/96

  The Commission recalls that the question of whether a trial conforms to the standards laid down in Article 6 (Art. 6) must be decided on the basis of an evaluation of the trial in its entirety (cf. No. 11058/84, Dec. 13.5.86, D.R. 47, p. 230).
• EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10126/82

  Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 31513/96

  An arguable claim falls to be determined on the particular facts of each case and the nature of the legal issue raised (cf. Eur. Court HR, Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 139, p. 11, paras. 25, 27).

 
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 31513/96

  It requires "an effective remedy before a national authority" in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (cf. Eur. Court HR, Camenzind judgment, op. cit., para. 53; with reference to the Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, pp. 14-15, paras. 31-33).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 31513/96

  2 (Art. 8-2), requires that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law and that the law in question should be accessible to the person concerned - who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him - and compatible with the rule of law (cf. Eur. Court HR, Kruslin v. France judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 20, para. 27).
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 11471/85

  CRÉMIEUX v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 31513/96

  55-57, Series A no. 256-B, pp.
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

  FUNKE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 31513/96

  The Convention organs must assess whether the reasons adduced to justify such measures were relevant and sufficient and whether the aforementioned proportionality principle has been adhered to (cf. Eur. Court HR, Funke v. France, Crémieux v. France and Miailhe v. France (no. 1) judgments of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A, pp.