Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GÜLMEZ v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Preliminary objection joined to the merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 8 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 16330/02
• EGMR, 13.02.2019 - 16330/02

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94

  Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 16330/02

  The Court also recalls that any interference with an individual's right to respect for private and family life will constitute a breach of Article 8 unless it was "in accordance with the law", pursued a legitimate aim or aims under paragraph 2, and was "necessary in a democratic society", in the sense that it was proportionate to the aims sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 45, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30985/96

  HASSAN ET TCHAOUCH c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 16330/02

  Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any executive discretion and the manner of its exercise (see Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 84, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 16330/02

  As a result, the applicant had a right to challenge the disciplinary sanctions before the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, §§ 62-63, ECHR 2007-...).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 16330/02

  Under this provision the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 16330/02

  It is also recalled that the right of access to court, by its very nature, calls for regulation by the State, which may vary in time and in place according to the needs and resources of the community and individuals (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, § 38).
• EGMR, 25.11.1993 - 14282/88

  ZANDER v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 16330/02

  The dispute may relate not only to the existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise (see, inter alia, Zander v. Sweden, judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-B, p. 38, § 22).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 16330/02

  The State has a margin of appreciation in making such regulations but the limitations applied must not restrict or reduce the access left to the individual in such a way as to impair the essence of this right (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, § 57).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 16330/02

  For example, they continue to enjoy the right to respect for family life (see Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, § 61, ECHR 2000-X; Ploski v. Poland, no. 26761/95, judgment of 12 November 2002; X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9054/80, Commission decision of 8 October 1982, Decisions and Reports (DR) 30, p. 113) and the right to respect for correspondence (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 16330/02

  As to the first condition, the Court reiterates that, in accordance with its established case-law, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable only if there is a genuine and serious "dispute" (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 30, § 81) over "civil rights and obligations".
• EGMR, 26.03.1992 - 11760/85

  ÉDITIONS PÉRISCOPE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 16330/02

  Furthermore, "Article 6 § 1 extends to "contestations" (disputes) over (civil) "rights" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law, irrespective of whether they are also protected under the Convention" (see, inter alia, Editions Périscope v. France, judgment of 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234-B, p. 64, § 35; Zander, cited above).
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE
• EKMR, 08.10.1982 - 9054/80

  A. v. ROYAUME-UNI

• EGMR - 11990/06

  [FRE]

  Le droit et la pratique internes pertinents quant au juge de l'exécution sont décrits dans l'arrêt Gülmez c. Turquie (no 16330/02, §§ 13-15, 20 mai 2008).

  A la lumière de la jurisprudence de la Cour (Ganci c. Italie, no 41576/98, §§ 20-26, CEDH 2003-XI, et Gülmez c. Turquie, no 16330/02, §§ 24-31, 20 mai 2008), l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention était-il applicable à la procédure disciplinaire suivie en l'espèce ? Dans l'affirmative, la cause des requérants a-t-elle été entendue publiquement par les tribunaux nationaux, comme l'exige l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention, et les requérants ont-ils eu la possibilité de se défendre eux-mêmes ou avec l'assistance d'un avocat ?.

• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 9486/05

  ARSLAN v. TURKEY

  A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Gülmez v. Turkey, no. 16330/02, §§ 13-15, 20 May 2008 and Aydemir and others (dec.), nos.