Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  S.P., D.P. and A.T. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Admissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EKMR, 20.05.1996 - 23715/94

  The Commission and Court have consistently underlined that the object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings requires that its provisions, both procedural and substantive, be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (eg. Eur. Court H.R. Loizidou judgment of 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310, p. 26-27 paras. 70-72).

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  S.P., D.P., A.T. c. Royaume-Uni, no 23715/94, décision de la Commission du 20 mai 1996, Ä°lhan c. Turquie [GC], no 22277/93, § 55, CEDH 2000-VII, et Y.F. c. Turquie, no 24209/94, § 29, CEDH 2003-IX.
• EGMR, 10.09.2019 - 37283/13

  STRAND LOBBEN ET AUTRES c. NORVÈGE

  The Court has found it necessary to avoid a restrictive and purely technical approach in this area; in particular, consideration must be given to the links between the child in question and his or her "representatives", to the subject-matter and the purpose of the application and to the possibility of a conflict of interests (see S.P., D.P. and A.T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 23715/94, Commission decision of 20 May 1996, unreported; Giusto, Bornacin and V. v. Italy (dec.), no. 38972/06, ECHR 2007-V; and Moretti and Benedetti v. Italy (no. 16318/07, § 32, 27 April 2010).
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 43229/18

  Y.Y. AND Y.Y. v. RUSSIA

  Some examples are S.P., D.P., and A.T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 23715/94, Commission decision of 20 May 1996, where a solicitor bringing a complaint on behalf of children had already represented those children in the domestic court proceedings and had been appointed by the guardian ad litem.

 
• EGMR, 20.06.2019 - 7144/15

  A AND B v. CROATIA

  The Court has certainly consistently shown itself flexible enough for cases advanced by representatives of those who are vulnerable by reason of their age, sex or disability, which rendered them unable to lodge a complaint on their own behalf with the Court to be entertained: see S.P., D.P. and A.T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 23715/94, Commission decision of 20 May 1996, unreported and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 103, ECHR 2014.
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 17791/22

  A ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  La Cour estime en conséquence que la désignation ad litem de la curatrice n'implique pas l'impossibilité pour l'intéressée de représenter les enfants également dans la procédure devant la Cour (S.P., D.P. et A.T. c. Royaume-Uni, no 23715/94, décision de la Commission du 20 mai 1996).
• EGMR, 15.05.2007 - 38972/06

  GIUSTO, BORNACIN AND V. v. ITALY

  Par ailleurs, les organes de la Convention auraient reconnu la possibilité, pour un mineur, d'agir directement devant eux par l'intermédiaire d'un avocat désigné par le mineur lui-même ou d'une personne qui agit dans son intérêt (S.D., D.P., et T. c. Royaume-Uni, no 23715/94, décision de la Commission du 20 mai 1996, non publiée).
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 12518/05

  DANILINA v. RUSSIA

  In line with this approach it had previously accepted for examination applications lodged on behalf of minors by persons lacking formal power to represent them at the domestic level (see S.D., D.P., and T v. the United Kingdom, no. 23715/94, Commission decision of 20 May 1996, unpublished, Commission report of 11 April 1997, DR 89-A, p. 31), applications lodged jointly by spouses in respect of events predominantly concerning one of them (see Houtman and Meeus v. Belgium, no. 22945/07, §§ 27-31, 17 March 2009), and applications pursued or lodged by relatives on behalf of deceased persons (see respectively Loyen and Others v. France, no. 55926/00, § 25, 29 April 2003 and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 31.08.2004 - 34407/02

  C. and D. and S. and OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  As the Commission has previously pointed out, the position of children under Article 34 (formerly Article 25) qualifies for careful consideration, as children must generally rely on other persons to present their claims and represent their interests, and may not be of an age or capacity to authorise any steps to be taken on their behalf in any real sense (no. 23715/94, S.P., D.P. and T. v. the United Kingdom, decision of 20 May 1996, unpublished, Commission report of 11 April 1997, DR 89-A, p. 31).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 59172/12

  G.J. v. SPAIN

  On this basis, applications lodged on behalf of such victim(s), have been declared admissible even though no valid written authority to act was presented (see conversely N. and M. v. Russia, cited above, § 63 and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu, cited above, § 103; Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 55, ECHR 2000-VII; Y.F. v. Turkey, no. 24209/94, § 29, ECHR 2003-IX; and S.P., D.P. and A.T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 23715/94, Commission decision of 20 May 1996).