Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 27533/95 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1996,24911) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MARTIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MARTIN c. ROYAUME-UNI
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
Irrecevable (französisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10454/83
GASKIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 27533/95
Following the decision in the Gaskin case (Eur. Court H.R., Gaskin judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 160), the Health records Act 1990 was enacted providing for a prima facie right of access to health records created after 1 November 1991 (section 3), for the retention of such health records in certain defined cases (section 4) and for the retention of records the disclosure of which would be likely to cause serious harm to the physical or mental health of the patient or which contain information in relation to a third party from which that third party could be identified (section 5).The applicant submits that the circumstances of his case mirror those of Mr. Gaskin, in whose case the Court found a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention (Eur. Court H.R., Gaskin judgment 7 July 1989, Series A no. 160).
- EGMR, 17.10.1986 - 9532/81
REES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 27533/95
In striking this balance, the aims mentioned in the second paragraph of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention may be of certain relevance (see, for example, Eur. Court H.R., Rees judgment of 17 October 1986, Series A no. 106, p. 15, para. 37). - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 27533/95
As regards the applicant's more general complaint, made directly under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention, about the lack of an effective domestic remedy, the Commission recalls that 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, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 27533/95
The Commission considers that these submissions of the applicant are most appropriately considered under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention and, in this regard, recalls that neither Article 13 (Art. 13) nor the Convention lay down for the Contracting States any given manner for ensuring within their internal law the effective implementation of the provisions of the Convention and that a State is not obliged to incorporate the Convention into its legal order (Eur. Court H.R., Silver and others judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 42, para. 113).