Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 7, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EKMR, 08.02.1973 - 5258/71

  X. v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 25290/94

  In accordance with its constant case-law (see e.g. No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3, pp. 222, 236; No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43, pp. 71, 77; No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18, pp. 31, 45) the Commission also recalls that it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 25290/94

  However, the case-law of the Convention organs establishes that Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention does not require a remedy in domestic law for all claims alleging a breach of the Convention; the claim must be an arguable one (Eur. Court H.R., Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, para. 52).
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10461/83

  CHAPPELL c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 25290/94

  Insofar as the applicant complains about a lack of respect for her home as a result of the issuance of possession proceedings by the Council, the Commission recalls that any interference with the right to respect for private life must be in accordance with the law, pursue a legitimate aim and the means employed must be proportionate to that aim (see, for example, Eur. Court H.R., Chappell judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 152).

 
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 25290/94

  Furthermore, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment; the scope of this margin will vary according to the circumstances, the subject matter and the background (Eur. Court H.R., Lithgow judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, pp. 66-67, para. 177).
• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 11581/85

  DARBY v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 25290/94

  However, such a difference in treatment will only be discriminatory if it does not pursue a "legitimate aim" and if there is no "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (see, for example, Eur. Court H.R., Darby judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187, p. 12, para. 31).
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90

  STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 25290/94

  The Commission therefore considers that the applicant failed to appropriately bring to the attention of the court her difficulties with regard to attendance at court due to her disability and as such considers that the State cannot be held responsible for those difficulties (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court H.R., Stanford judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 282).
• EKMR, 13.12.1979 - 7987/77

  COMPANY X. v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 25290/94

  In accordance with its constant case-law (see e.g. No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3, pp. 222, 236; No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43, pp. 71, 77; No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18, pp. 31, 45) the Commission also recalls that it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.