Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PARSONS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 26521/95

  1 (Art. 6-1) guarantees to everyone who claims that an interference with his "civil rights" is unlawful the right to submit that claim to a tribunal satisfying the requirements of that provision (Eur. Court H.R., Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 20, para. 44), Article 6 (Art. 6) does not in itself guarantee any particular content for "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of Contracting States (cf. Eur. Court H.R., James and others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 46, para. 81; Lithgow and others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 70, para. 192) and the claim or dispute to be submitted to a tribunal must be of a "genuine and of a serious nature" (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Benthem judgment of 23 October 1985, Series A no. 97, p. 14, para. 32).
• EGMR, 23.10.1985 - 8848/80

  BENTHEM v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 26521/95

  1 (Art. 6-1) guarantees to everyone who claims that an interference with his "civil rights" is unlawful the right to submit that claim to a tribunal satisfying the requirements of that provision (Eur. Court H.R., Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 20, para. 44), Article 6 (Art. 6) does not in itself guarantee any particular content for "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of Contracting States (cf. Eur. Court H.R., James and others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 46, para. 81; Lithgow and others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 70, para. 192) and the claim or dispute to be submitted to a tribunal must be of a "genuine and of a serious nature" (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Benthem judgment of 23 October 1985, Series A no. 97, p. 14, para. 32).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 26521/95

  In principle, it does not suffice for an individual to claim that the mere existence of a law violates his rights under the Convention; it is necessary that the law should have been applied to his detriment (Eur. Court HR, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 18, para. 41; Dec. 14631/89, p. 307 with other references).
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 26521/95

  1 (Art. 6-1) guarantees to everyone who claims that an interference with his "civil rights" is unlawful the right to submit that claim to a tribunal satisfying the requirements of that provision (Eur. Court H.R., Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 20, para. 44), Article 6 (Art. 6) does not in itself guarantee any particular content for "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of Contracting States (cf. Eur. Court H.R., James and others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 46, para. 81; Lithgow and others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 70, para. 192) and the claim or dispute to be submitted to a tribunal must be of a "genuine and of a serious nature" (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Benthem judgment of 23 October 1985, Series A no. 97, p. 14, para. 32).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 26521/95

  Insofar as the applicant invokes Article 13 (Art. 13) in respect of his complaints under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, the Commission recalls that Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention requires a remedy in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (Eur. Court H.R., Powell and Rayner judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 14, para. 31).

• EKMR, 21.05.1997 - 34889/97

  HENNICKE v. GERMANY

  (cf. No. 12194/86, Dec. 12.5.88, D.R. 56, p. 205; No. 25096/94, Dec. 6.9.95, D.R. 82, p. 117; No. 25992/94, Dec. 29.11.95 and No. 26521/95, Dec. 26.6.96 - unpublished).