Rechtsprechung
   EKMR, 26.10.1995 - 20087/92   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1995,30723
EKMR, 26.10.1995 - 20087/92 (https://dejure.org/1995,30723)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 26.10.1995 - 20087/92 (https://dejure.org/1995,30723)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 26. Oktober 1995 - 20087/92 (https://dejure.org/1995,30723)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1995,30723) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

  • EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

    MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EKMR, 26.10.1995 - 20087/92
    Thus, the limited nature of this issue does not, in the Commission's view, in itself call for oral argument or a public hearing or the personal appearance of the applicant, but Article 6 requires that the applicant be provided, in some appropriate way, with a fair procedure to present his case to the Appeals Selection Committee (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, pp. 22 and 23, paras. 58 and 61).
  • EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

    FEJDE c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EKMR, 26.10.1995 - 20087/92
    Regard must be had to the nature of the appeal system, to the scope of the appeal court's powers and to the manner in which the applicant's interests were actually presented and protected before the appeal court, particularly in the light of the nature of the issue to be decided (cf. for example Eur. Court H.R., Fejde judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-C, p. 67, para. 27).
  • EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

    Radikalenerlaß

    Auszug aus EKMR, 26.10.1995 - 20087/92
    The State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation but in addition to pursuing a legitimate aim the limitations applied shall not restrict or reduce the access left to the individual in such a way that the very essence of the right is impaired (cf. for example Eur. Court H.R., Tolstoy Miloslawsky v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 323, para. 59).
  • EKMR, 16.07.1981 - 8769/79

    X. c. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

    Auszug aus EKMR, 26.10.1995 - 20087/92
    It considers, however, that if the domestic law, as in the present case, subjects the acceptance of the appeal to a decision by the competent court whether it considers that the appeal raises a legal issue of fundamental importance and whether it has any chances of success, it may be sufficient for this court simply to reject or accept this petition (cf. No. 8769/79, Dec. 16.7.81, D.R. 25 p. 240).
  • EKMR, 03.10.1984 - 10438/83

    BATELAAN et HUIGES c. PAYS-BAS

    Auszug aus EKMR, 26.10.1995 - 20087/92
    As regards expectations for future income, the Commission recalls that it could only be considered to constitute a possession if it had already been earned or if an enforceable claim existed (cf. No. 10438/83, Dec. 3.10.84, D.R. 41 p. 170).
  • EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 15319/09

    HANSEN v. NORWAY

    (i) The case-law in question was very specific and had been limited to dealing with decisions taken by national supreme- or constitutional courts or similar tribunals of last and final jurisdiction, with inherent features suggesting a more lenient duty to state reasons (see for instance, X v. Germany, (dec.) no. 8769/79, 16 July 1981; Müller-Eberstein v. Germany (dec.), no. 29753/96, 27 November 1996; Immeubles Groupe Kosser v. France (dec.), no. 38748/97, 9 March 1999; Bufferne v. France (dec.), no. 54367/00, ECHR 2002-III (extracts)); Burg and Others v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II; Sale v. France, no. 39765/04, 21 March 2006); Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42295/98, 11 July 2000; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; and E.M. v. Norway (dec.), no. 20087/92, 26 October 1995).

    The third case mentioned in paragraph 80 of the present judgment is E.M. v. Norway (no. 20087/92, Commission decision of 26 October 1995, Decisions and Reports (DR) no. 83-A).

  • EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 6091/06

    RYWIN c. POLOGNE

    Le fait que le contrôle de la Cour suprême n'ait porté que sur les questions de légalité n'est pas incompatible avec les exigences de l'article 2 du Protocole no 7 à la Convention (voir, Näss c. Suède, no 18066/91, décision de la Commission du 6 avril 1994, Décisions et rapports 77, p. 37-40, E.M. c. Norvège, no 20087/92, décision de la Commission du 26 octobre 1995, Décisions et rapports 83- B, p. 5, Bastone c. Italie (déc.), no 59638/00, 21 octobre 2003).
  • EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 18880/15

    PAPAIOANNOU c. GRÈCE

    D'autre part, de manière plus générale, la Cour a jugé, sous l'angle de l'article 6, que les cours suprêmes ou constitutionnelles ou autres juridictions de dernière instance ne sont pas tenues de fournir une motivation détaillée lorsqu'elles refusent de se saisir d'un recours dans le contexte d'une procédure de filtrage (voir notamment, E.M. c. Norvège (déc.), no 20087/92, 26 octobre 1995 ; Société anonyme Immeuble Groupe Kosser c. France (déc.), no 38748/97, 9 mars 1999 ; Nerva et autres c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 42295/98, 11 juillet 2000 ; Sawoniuk c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 63716/00, CEDH 2001-VI ; Bufferne c. France (déc.), no 5436700, CEDH 2002-III (extraits)) ; Burg et autres c. France (déc.), no 34763/02, CEDH 2003-II ; Sale c. France, no 39765/04, 21 mars 2006 ; Øvlisen c. Danemark (déc.), no16469/05, 30 août 2006 et Hansen c. Norvège, no 15319/09, § 74, 2 octobre 2014.
  • EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 75414/10

    KURBAN v. TURKEY

    In its case-law the Court, and formerly the Commission, have consistently held that "future income" can only constitute a "possession" to the extent that it has already been earned, or is definitely payable (see Batelaan and Huiges v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 10438/83, D.R. 41, p. 176: E.M. v. Norway (dec.), no. 20087/92, 26 October 1995 [Plenary Commission]; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, 6 February 2003; Anheuser-Busch Inc.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht