Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JACQ v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 57 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 22470/93

  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).

  The text set out above is limited to enshrining the right of everyone to the peaceful enjoyment of "his" possessions; it thus applies only to existing possessions (see Eur. Court H.R., Marckx judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 23, para. 50 and Eur. Court. H.R., Van der Mussele judgment of 29 September 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, para. 48).

• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 22470/93

  As regards the subjective test, the Commission and the Court of Human Rights have constantly held that the impartiality of a judge must be presumed until the contrary is established (cf. for example, Eur. Court H.R., Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 25, para. 58).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 22470/93

  The text set out above is limited to enshrining the right of everyone to the peaceful enjoyment of "his" possessions; it thus applies only to existing possessions (see Eur. Court H.R., Marckx judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 23, para. 50 and Eur. Court. H.R., Van der Mussele judgment of 29 September 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, para. 48).

• EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 24271/05

  ABBASOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In this regard, the Court recalls that, where the facts consist of a series of legal proceedings, the date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of the Contracting State in question has the effect of dividing the period into two, the earlier part falling outside the Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis (see e.g. Klimentyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 46503/99, 17 September 2002; Jacq v. Finland, no. 22470/93, Commission decision of 18 October 1995, unreported; and Mitap and MüftüoÄ?lu v. Turkey, judgment of 25 March 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, § 26-27).