Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ARTIN AND VERENIGING B,RIT SJALOM v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 34 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 30429/96

  Although the application of Article 14 (Art. 14) does not necessarily presuppose a breach of those provisions - and to this extent it is autonomous -, there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (cf. Eur. Court HR, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. United Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 35, para. 71 and Eur. Court HR, Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, p. 32, para. 22).
• EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88

  KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 30429/96

  Although the application of Article 14 (Art. 14) does not necessarily presuppose a breach of those provisions - and to this extent it is autonomous -, there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (cf. Eur. Court HR, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. United Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 35, para. 71 and Eur. Court HR, Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, p. 32, para. 22).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 30429/96

  The Commission observes that the Contracting States have the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations including Article 3 (Art. 3), to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (cf. Eur. Court HR, Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, para. 102).

 
• EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88

  OPEN DOOR AND DUBLIN WELL WOMAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 30429/96

  The Commission recalls that in order to claim to be a victim of an interference with a right under the Convention, an applicant must be "directly affected" by the measure complained of (see e.g. Eur. Court HR Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland judgment of 29 October 1992, Series A no. 246, p. 22, para. 44).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 30429/96

  The Commission recalls that according to the Convention organs' established case-law, this provision has been interpreted as requiring the existence of a remedy before a national authority for anyone who may make an "arguable claim" that his rights under the Convention have been violated (cf. e.g. Eur. Court HR, Boyle and Rice v. United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, para. 52).
• EKMR, 19.03.1981 - 8118/77

  OMKARANANDA et DIVINE LIGHT ZENTRUM c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 30429/96

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (cf. e.g. No. 8118/77, Dec. 19.3.81, D.R. 25 p. 105 and No. 13162/87, Dec. 9.11.87, D.R. 54 p. 211).
• EKMR, 09.11.1987 - 13162/87

  V.P. v. UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 30429/96

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (cf. e.g. No. 8118/77, Dec. 19.3.81, D.R. 25 p. 105 and No. 13162/87, Dec. 9.11.87, D.R. 54 p. 211).
• EKMR, 12.05.1986 - 10427/83

  C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 30429/96

  In view of the above conclusion that the complaints raised under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention are incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, it follows that the first applicant has no "arguable claim" (cf. No. 10427/83, Dec. 12.5.86, D.R. 47 p. 85).