Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NURMINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 27881/95

  The Commission recalls that the right to freedom to receive information basically prohibits the Contracting States from restricting the possibility of receiving information that others wish or may be willing to impart (see, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 29, para. 74).
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 27881/95

  The Commission recalls, however, that Article 13 does not go as far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State's laws as such to be challenged before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention or to equivalent domestic legal norms (see, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 74, para. 206).
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 27881/95

  Article 14 is effective solely in relation to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms safeguarded by the other substantive provisions (see, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Van der Mussele v. Belgium judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 22, para. 43).

• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

  23868/94 and 23869/94, Commission decision of 24 February 1995, DR 80, p. 162; Bader v. Austria, no. 26633/95, Commission decision of 15 May 1996; Nurminen and Others v. Finland, no. 27881/95, Commission decision of 26 February 1997; and Grupo Interpres SA v. Spain, no. 32849/96, Commission decision of 7 April 1997, DR 89, p. 150) and by the Court, which in paragraph 74 of its 1987 judgment in the Leander case set out the approach which was to become the standard jurisprudential position on the matter in later years:.
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 22962/15

  MOOHAN ET GILLON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Au contraire, ils ont dit sans équivoque que cet article ne s'appliquait qu'aux élections portant sur le choix du corps législatif et non aux référendums (X. c. Royaume-Uni, décision précitée, Bader c. Autriche (déc.), no 26633/95, décision de la Commission du 15 mai 1996, non publiée, Nurminen et autres c. Finlande (déc.), no 27881/95, 26 février 1997, Castelli et autres c. Italie, nos 35790/97 et 38438/97, décision de la Commission du 14 septembre 1998, DR 94, p. 102, Hilbe c. Liechtenstein (déc.), no 31981/96, CEDH 1999-VI, Borghi c. Italie (déc.), no 54767/00, CEDH 2002-V (extraits), Z. c. Lettonie, no 14755/03, 24 janvier 2008, Niedzwiedz c. Pologne (déc.), no 1345/06, 11 mars 2008, et McLean et Cole, décision précitée, § 32).
• EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 48818/17

  CUMHURIYET HALK PARTISI v. TURKEY

  It follows, as the Court has previously held, that the ordinary meaning of the language used in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 limits its application to elections concerning the choice of the legislature, held at reasonable intervals, and does not apply to referendums (see X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 7096/75, Commission decision of 3 October 1975, Decisions and Reports (DR) 3; Bader v. Austria, no. 26633/95, Commission decision of 15 May 1996, unreported; Nurminen v. Finland (dec.), no. 27881/95, 26 February 1997; Castelli and Others v. Italy, nos.