Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BEALE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 16743/03

  As to the applicant's contention that his circumstances disclose a violation of Article 14 of the Convention by virtue of the difference between the treatment afforded to him and the position if he had been detained by the police, the Court recalls that for the purposes of Article 14 a difference in treatment between persons in analogous or relevantly similar positions is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification, that is if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (for example, Pretty v. United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III, § 88).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 16743/03

  The Court recalls its finding in Imbrioscia v. Switzerland that Article 6 - especially paragraph 3 - may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, p. 13, § 36).
• EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 16743/03

  Moreover, the Contracting States enjoy a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment (see Camp and Bourimi v. the Netherlands, no. 28369/95, ECHR 2000-X, § 37).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen