Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KUCHE v. GERMANY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KUCHE c. ALLEMAGNE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79

  Inze ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EKMR, 24.06.1996 - 29742/96

  There can be no room for application of Article 14 (Art. 14) unless the facts of the case fall within the ambit of one or more of such provisions (Eur. Court H.R., Inze judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 17, para. 36).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10964/84

  BROZICEK v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 24.06.1996 - 29742/96

  The Commission recalls that under international law, to which Article 26 (Art. 26) makes express reference, the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies demands the use of such remedies as are available and sufficient and relate to the breaches alleged (see, Eur. Court H.R., Ciulla judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 148, p. 15, para. 31; Brozicek judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 167, pp. 16-17, para. 34).
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84

  CIULLA v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 24.06.1996 - 29742/96

  The Commission recalls that under international law, to which Article 26 (Art. 26) makes express reference, the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies demands the use of such remedies as are available and sufficient and relate to the breaches alleged (see, Eur. Court H.R., Ciulla judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 148, p. 15, para. 31; Brozicek judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 167, pp. 16-17, para. 34).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 24.06.1996 - 29742/96

  However, the scope of review by the Convention organs is limited and it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see Eur. Court H.R., Winterwerp judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 18, para. 39, p. 20, paras. 45-46; Eur. Comm. H.R., No. 9997/82, Dec. 7.12.82, D.R. 31 p. 245).

• EKMR, 04.03.1998 - 38570/97

  HINDRICHS v. GERMANY

  However, the scope of review by the Convention organs is limited and it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see Eur. Court HR, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 18, para. 39, p. 20, paras. 45-46; No. 9997/82, Dec. 7.12.82, D.R. 31, p. 245; No. 29742/96, Dec. 24.6.96, D.R. 86-A, p. 163).

  The Commission has already found that, apart from the question whether individuals in these two groups were in analogous situations, the difference of treatment between them, in the application of the laws in force, had an objective and reasonable justification and did not amount to discrimination on political grounds (cf. No. 29742/96, Dec. 24.6.96, D.R. 86-A, p. 163).

• EKMR, 27.02.1997 - 30454/96

  Klaus Croissant

  The Commission has already found that, apart from the question whether individuals in these two groups were in analogous situations, the difference of treatment between them, in the application of the laws in force, had an objective and reasonable justification and did not amount to discrimination on political grounds (cf. No. 29742/96, Dec. 24.6.96, D.R. 86-A, p. 163).