Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WOOLHEAD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

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

• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EKMR, 21.05.1997 - 31219/96

  The Commission further recalls the margin of appreciation accorded to national authorities in the sphere of planning control in the exercise of discretionary judgement inherent in the implementation of policies adopted in the interests of the community as a whole (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Klass and Others v. Germany judgement of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 23, para. 49 and Buckley v. the United Kingdom, loc. cit., para. 75).
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 21.05.1997 - 31219/96

  Accordingly, the Commission finds that in the circumstances of the present case there has been an interference by a public authority with the applicant's right to respect for his home (see Eur. Court HR, Gillow v. the United Kingdom judgement of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, p. 19, para. 47 and Buckley v. the United Kingdom judgement of 25 September 1996, to be reported in Reports 1996, paras. 52-55).
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 21.05.1997 - 31219/96

  In determining whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society, the Commission recalls that as a general rule it is first for national authorities to assess the necessity for any interference both in respect of the legislative framework and the measure of implementation (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Leander v. Sweden judgement of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 25, para. 59).

 
• EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

  McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 21.05.1997 - 31219/96

  In particular, the decision-making process leading to measures of interference must be fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the individual by Article 8 (Art. 8) (see Eur. Court HR, McMichael v. the United Kingdom judgement of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B, p. 55, para. 87 and Buckley v. the United Kingdom, loc. cit., para. 76).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94

  BELLET c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 21.05.1997 - 31219/96

  The Commission recalls, however, that it is not its role to review national legislation in the abstract, but to consider the specific issues raised in the case before it (see Eur. Court HR, Bellet v. France judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 333-B, p. 42, para. 34).
• EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92

  S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 21.05.1997 - 31219/96

  Recalling the decision of the Court in Bryan v. the United Kingdom (judgement of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335, pp. 13-18, paras. 30-47) where the same point was raised, the Commission considers that the scope of the review of the planning decision available to the applicant on appeal to the High Court, which enabled the applicant, inter alia, to challenge any decision or finding of the Secretary of State as being perverse or irrational; or any decision or finding of the Inspector as having no basis in evidence or as having been made by reference to irrelevant factors or without regard to relevant factors, was sufficient to comply with Article 6 para.