Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HASHMAN ET HARRUP c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Art. 11 MRK
  Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 11 Violation de l'art. 10 Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HASHMAN AND HARRUP v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Art. 11 MRK
  Not necessary to examine Art. 11 Violation of Art. 10 Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 26.06.1996 - 25594/94
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 25594/94
• EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 25594/94

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

  CHORHERR v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 25594/94

  The Government disagreed with the Commission's conclusion that there was no objective element to help a citizen regulate his conduct: they pointed to the Chorherr case, where an administrative offence of causing "a breach of the peace by conduct likely to cause annoyance" fell within the scope of the concept of "prescribed by law" (Chorherr v. Austria judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-B, pp. 35-36, § 25).

  It has pointed out also that "it is primarily for the national authorities to interpret and apply domestic law" (see the Chorherr v. Austria judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-B, pp. 35-36, § 25).

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 25390/94

  REKVÉNYI c. HONGRIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 25594/94

  The level of precision required of domestic legislation - which cannot in any case provide for every eventuality - depends to a considerable degree on the content of the instrument in question, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see generally in this connection, Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-III).

• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 40825/98

  RELIGIONSGEMEINSCHAFT DER ZEUGEN JEHOVAS AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA

  Reports 1998-I, p. 378, § 40; Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 31, ECHR 1999-VIII; and Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30985/96

  HASSAN ET TCHAOUCH c. BULGARIE

  The law should be both adequately accessible and foreseeable, that is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the individual - if need be with appropriate advice - to regulate his conduct (see, the Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 31, ' 49; the Larissis and Others v. Greece judgment of 24 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 378, ' 40; Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, ' 31, ECHR 1999- ; and Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, ' 52, ECHR 2000- ).
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 4158/05

  GILLAN ET QUINTON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  The level of precision required of domestic legislation - which cannot in any case provide for every eventuality - depends to a considerable degree on the content of the instrument in question, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see, for example, Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 31, ECHR 1999-VIII; S. and Marper, cited above, § 96).

 
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 24117/08

  BERNH LARSEN HOLDING AS AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  The level of precision required of domestic legislation - which cannot in any case provide for every eventuality - depends to a considerable degree on the content of the instrument in question, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see, for example, Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 31, ECHR 1999-VIII; S. and Marper, cited above, § 96).".
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 37083/03

  TEBIETI MÜHAFIZE CEMIYYETI AND ISRAFILOV c. AZERBAIDJAN

  Le niveau de précision de la législation interne dépend dans une large mesure du contenu de l'instrument en question et du domaine qu'il est censé couvrir (Hashman et Harrup c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 25594/94, CEDH 1999-VIII, § 31).
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9540/07

  MURAT VURAL v. TURKEY

  Similarly, in Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 25594/94, § 28, ECHR 1999-VIII) holding a protest during which a fox hunt was disrupted by blowing a hunting horn and by engaging in hallooing was held to constitute an expression of opinion within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 25196/04

  CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S PARTY v. MOLDOVA (No. 2)

  The Court recalls that even such forms of protest as active physical obstruction of hunting were held to be an expression of an opinion (see Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 92, Reports 1998-VII; Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 28, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 25723/94

  ERDOGDU c. TURQUIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà examiné, sous l'angle des articles 7 et 10 § 2 de la Convention, la question de «la légalité» et de «la prévisibilité» d'une condamnation prononcée au titre de l'article 8 de la loi no 3713 et jugé que celui-ci répondait aux exigences formulées dans les deux dispositions de la Convention mentionnées ci-dessus (Baskaya et OkçuoÄ?lu c. Turquie [GC], nos 23536/94 et 24408/94, §§ 40, 43 et 49, CEDH 1999-IV ; pour les principes généraux en la matière voir, notamment, Öztürk précité, §§ 54-55, et Hashman et Harrup c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 25594/94, § 31, CEDH 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.10.2015 - 35399/05

  KONSTANTIN STEFANOV v. BULGARIA

  Domestic legislation could not in any case provide for every eventuality and the level of precision required depends to a considerable degree on the content of the instrument in question, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 31, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 43519/07

  MILOJEVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  The law should be both adequately accessible and foreseeable, that is, formulated with sufficient precision to enable the individual - if need be with appropriate advice - to regulate his conduct (see the Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 31, § 49; the Larissis and Others v. Greece judgment of 24 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 378, § 40; Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 31, ECHR 1999-VIII; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V, Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 84, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 68294/01

  KANDZHOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 5548/05

  ISLAM-ITTIHAD ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 28582/02

  ASAN c. TURQUIE