Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  REKASI c. HONGRIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 57 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RÉKÁSI v. HUNGARY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 57 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

  BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 31506/96

  On the other hand, it is not required that the proceedings before the administrative authorities comply with Article 6 (Art. 6) (cf., Eur. Court HR, Belilos v. Switzerland judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 30, para. 68).

  The Commission recalls that "by 'reservation of a general character' in Article 64 (Art. 64) is meant in particular a reservation couched in terms that are too vague or broad for it to be possible to determine their exact meaning and scope" (cf., Eur. Court HR, Belilos v. Switzerland judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 26, para. 55).

  2 (Art. 64-2) of the Convention "both constitutes an evidential factor and contributes to legal certainty"; its purpose "is to provide a guarantee - in particular for the other Contracting Parties and the Convention institutions - that a reservation does not go beyond the provisions expressly excluded by the State concerned" (cf. Eur. Court HR, Belilos v. Switzerland judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, pp. 27-28, para. 59; Weber v. Switzerland judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, p. 19, para. 38).

• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 31506/96

  This case-law has been confirmed by the Court (cf., e.g., Eur. Court HR, Minelli v. Switzerland judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62).
• EGMR, 23.06.1994 - 15088/89

  JACUBOWSKI v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 31506/96

  The fact that, in a given case, that freedom is exercised other than in the discussion of matters of public interest does not deprive it of the protection of Article 10 (Art. 10) (Eur. Court HR, Jacubowski v. Germany judgment of 23 June 1994, Series A no. 291-A, p. 13, para. 25).

 
• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 31506/96

  As regards the applicability of Article 6 (Art. 6) to the "regulatory" offence proceedings, the Commission, having regard to the criteria established in the case-law of the Convention organs (Eur. Court HR, Öztürk v. Germany judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, pp. 18-20, paras. 50-53; Lutz v. Germany judgment of 25 August 1987, Series A no. 123, pp. 22-24, paras. 51-57), notes that the proceedings in question fell within the scope of "regulatory" offence law according to the Hungarian legislation.
• EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 11034/84

  WEBER c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 31506/96

  2 (Art. 64-2) of the Convention "both constitutes an evidential factor and contributes to legal certainty"; its purpose "is to provide a guarantee - in particular for the other Contracting Parties and the Convention institutions - that a reservation does not go beyond the provisions expressly excluded by the State concerned" (cf. Eur. Court HR, Belilos v. Switzerland judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, pp. 27-28, para. 59; Weber v. Switzerland judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, p. 19, para. 38).
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 31506/96

  Thus the measures taken at national level must be justifiable in principle and proportionate (cf. Eur. Court HR, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, pp. 29-30, para. 59; Jacubowski v. Germany judgment, loc. cit., p. 14, para. 26).

• EGMR, 12.09.2017 - 35110/10

  WILCZYNSKI v. POLAND

  However, it must be reiterated that the Convention does not guarantee, as such, the right to institute criminal proceedings against third parties, for the right of access to a court which Article 6 of the Convention secures for everyone wishing to obtain a decision relating to his or her civil rights does not extend to a right to have criminal proceedings brought against a third party with a view to securing his or her conviction (see the following Commission decisions: X. v. the Federal Republic of Germany, no. 7116/75, 4 October 1976, Decisions and Reports (DR) 7, p. 91; Monica Wallén v. Sweden, no. 10877/84, 16 May 1985, DR 43, p. 184; and Istvánné Rékási v. Hungary, no. 31506/96, 25 November 1996, DR 87-A, p. 164).