Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 19.10.1998 - 31416/96 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EKMR, 14.07.1987 - 12587/86
CHAPPELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1998 - 31416/96
The Commission recalls that it has previously declared inadmissible a case concerning druidic access to Stonehenge (Chappell v. the United Kingdom, No. 12587/86, Dec. 14.7.97, D.R. 53, p. 241).Finally, the Commission recalls its decision in No. 12587/86 (cited above) where individuals and organisations interested in Stonehenge consulted with the authorities to try to find alternative solutions to the ban.
- EKMR, 06.04.1995 - 25522/94
RAI, ALLMOND ET
Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1998 - 31416/96
In the present case, the Commission will therefore deal with the case principally under Article 11 of the Convention, whilst having regard to Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention (see also No. 25522/94, Dec. 6.4.95, D.R. 81-A, p. 146, at p. 151).However, as the Commission has held on a number of occasions, public order concerns may justify a prohibition in a given case (see, for example, No. 8440/78, Dec. 16.7.80, D.R. 21, p. 138, concerning a two month ban on public processions other than customary ones in London, or No. 25522/94, Dec. 6.4.95, D.R. 81-A, p. 146, concerning a general ban on demonstrations concerning Northern Ireland in Trafalgar Square, in London).
- EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79
BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)
Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1998 - 31416/96
The question for the Commission is not whether or not domestic law contains a particular right (the Convention does not require incorporation of its substantive provisions into domestic law - see the Court's comments in the context of Article 13 in the case of James and others v. the United Kingdom, Series A no. 98, p. 47, para. 85), but rather whether the applicant's Convention right was respected. - EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81
POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1998 - 31416/96
The Commission recalls that the guarantees of Article 13 apply only to a grievance which can be regarded as "arguable" (cf. Eur. Court HR, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 14, para. 31). - EKMR, 16.07.1980 - 8440/78
CHRISTIAN AGAINST FASCISM AND RACISM v. the UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1998 - 31416/96
However, as the Commission has held on a number of occasions, public order concerns may justify a prohibition in a given case (see, for example, No. 8440/78, Dec. 16.7.80, D.R. 21, p. 138, concerning a two month ban on public processions other than customary ones in London, or No. 25522/94, Dec. 6.4.95, D.R. 81-A, p. 146, concerning a general ban on demonstrations concerning Northern Ireland in Trafalgar Square, in London).