Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  I. Z. c. GRECE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3, Art. 34 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  I.Z. v. GREECE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3, Art. 34 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1994 - 18997/91

  The Commission recalls that the word "victim" in Article 25 (Art. 25) refers to the person directly affected by the act or omission at issue, the existence of a violation being conceivable even in the absence of prejudice (cf. inter alia Eur. Court H.R., Marckx judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 13, para. 27; Lüdi judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 16, para. 34).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1994 - 18997/91

  The Commission recalls that the word "victim" in Article 25 (Art. 25) refers to the person directly affected by the act or omission at issue, the existence of a violation being conceivable even in the absence of prejudice (cf. inter alia Eur. Court H.R., Marckx judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 13, para. 27; Lüdi judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 16, para. 34).
• EKMR, 01.05.1985 - 11068/84

  PRIORELLO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1994 - 18997/91

  1 (Art. 6-1) (No. 11068/84, Priorello v. Italy, Dec. 6.5.85, D.R. 43 p. 195).

• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 24159/22

  GU?MUNDUR GUNNARSSON AND MAGN?S DAV?? NOR?DAHL v. ICELAND

  However, it is for the Court to determine whether the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have been observed and whether the respondent State has complied with its obligation to hold elections under free and fair conditions and has ensured that individual electoral rights were exercised effectively (see I.Z. v. Greece, no. 18997/91, Commission decision of 28 February 1994, Decisions and Reports 76-A, p. 65; Babenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 43476/98, 4 May 1999; and Gahramanli and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 36503/11, § 72, 8 October 2015).
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 29400/05

  COMMUNIST PARTY OF RUSSIA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  At the same time, the principle of subsidiarity does not prevent the Court from reviewing factual findings of the domestic courts if they are "arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable" (see I.Z. v. Greece, no. 18997/91, Commission decision of 28 February 1994, Decisions and Reports (DR) 76-B, p. 65, at p. 68, and Babenko v. Ukraine, (dec.), no. 43476/98, 4 May 1999; see also Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007; Camilleri v. Malta (dec.), no. 51760/99, 16 March 2000; and Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, § 189, 17 May 2010).
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 10547/07

  PARTIJA

  Par conséquent, lorsque la juridiction nationale compétente constate que l'irrégularité litigieuse n'a pas compromis le résultat du scrutin, le rôle de la Cour pour déterminer s'il y a eu ingérence dans « la libre expression de l'opinion du peuple sur le choix du corps législatif " se limite à établir si cette constatation avait un caractère arbitraire ou manifestement déraisonnable (voir I.Z. c. Grèce, no 18997/91, décision de la Commission du 28 février 1994, Décisions et rapports (DR) 76, p. 65, et Babenko c. Ukraine (déc.), no 43476/98, 4 mai 1999).