Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LAWLOR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LAWLOR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 6, Art. 13 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.07.1988 - 12763/87

  The case-law of the Court and the Commission establishes however, that for Article 13 (Art. 13) to apply, an applicant's claim that a provision of the Convention has been violated must be arguable (see e.g. Eur. Court H.R., Leander judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 29 para. 77 and Eur. Court H.R., Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April 1988, para. 52).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.07.1988 - 12763/87

  The Commission therefore may only examine the applicant's complaints insofar as the system of which he complains has been applied against him (see e.g. Eur. Court H.R., Olsson judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, para. 54).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.07.1988 - 12763/87

  The Government consider that the Commission in Rice and Boyle v. the United Kingdom (Application Nos. 9659/82 and 9658/82, Comm.
• EKMR, 11.12.1982 - 9013/80

  FARRELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.07.1988 - 12763/87

  The case-law of the Commission and Court establish that the burden of proving the existence of the available and sufficient domestic remedies lies upon the State invoking the rule (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A No. 35, p. 15 para. 26, Application No. 9013/80, Dec. 11.12.82, D.R. 30, pp. 96, 102).
• EKMR, 14.12.1978 - 7598/76

  KAPLAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.07.1988 - 12763/87

  They rely however on the Commission's statement in Kaplan v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 7598/76, Report of 17.7.80, D.R. 15 p. 120) concerning the relevance of the substantive content and effects of the right claimed under domestic law to the classification of a right as "civil".

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 34621/97

  CONSTANTINI v. SWEDEN

  circumstances of each case (cf., e.g., No. 12763/87, Dec.

  present case (cf. No. 12763/87, referred to above).

• EKMR, 30.11.1994 - 21827/93

  ERIKSSON AND ALANKO v. SWEDEN

  particular circumstances of each case (cf., e.g., No. 12763/87,.

  (cf. No. 12763/87, referred to above).

• EGMR, 30.11.2017 - 37283/13

  STRAND LOBBEN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  In the latter situation, there may be an interference with the grandparents' right to respect for their family life only if the public authority reduces access below what is normal, that is, diminishes contacts by refusing to grandparents the reasonable access necessary to preserve a normal grandparent-grandchild relationship (see, inter alia, Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 12402/86, Commission decision of 9 March 1988, DR 55, p. 224; Lawlor v. the United Kingdom, no. 12763/87, Commission decision of 14 July 1988, Decisions and Reports (DR) 57, p. 216; and Kruškić, cited above, § 110).

• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 10140/13

  KRUSKIC v. CROATIA

  The Court first reiterates that there may be "family life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention between grandparents and grandchildren where there are sufficiently close family ties between them (see Lawlor v. the United Kingdom, no. 12763/87, Commission decision of 14 July 1988, Decisions and Reports (DR) 57, p. 216).
• EKMR, 07.09.1995 - 16817/90

  PAULSEN-MEDALEN AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

  present case (cf. also No. 12763/87, Dec. 14.7.88, D.R. 57 p. 216).
• EKMR, 05.04.1995 - 21009/92

  GUSTAVSSON v. SWEDEN

  on the particular circumstances of each case (cf., e.g., No. 12763/87,.
• EGMR, 14.06.2001 - 45004/98

  STANCZUK v. POLAND

  The Court further recalls that Article 6 of the Convention is not applicable to proceedings concerning the recognition of a "right" which has no legal basis in the State in question (no. 12763/87, Dec.14.7.88, D.R. 57 p. 216).
• EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 29806/96

  RYBICKI v. POLAND

  12763/87, Dec.
• EKMR, 17.01.1996 - 26259/95

  WOLLMAR AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

  No. 12763/87, Lawlor v. the United Kingdom, Dec.
• EKMR, 05.04.1995 - 23977/94

  STOMBROWSKI AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

  12763/87, Dec 14.7.88, D.R. 57 p. 216).
• EKMR, 22.02.1995 - 21849/93

  FÄLLGREN v. SWEDEN
• EKMR, 11.05.1994 - 23318/94

  GEBLUSEK v. HUNGARY
• EKMR, 11.01.1994 - 19123/91

  KARPPINEN v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 15633/15

  T.S. AND J..J. v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 55531/00

  SITKOV v. RUSSIA