Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,55603) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 33129/96
OLIVIEIRA c. PAYS-BAS
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09
The Court reiterates its settled case-law, according to which the expression "in accordance with the law" not only requires that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, for example, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V, and Olivieira v. the Netherlands, no. 33129/96, § 47, ECHR 2002-IV; see also, as a more recent authority, Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 59, 1 July 2008). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95
ATHANASSOGLOU ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09
The Court will confine itself to noting that, according to its standing case-law, Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law to be available in respect only of such grievances as are "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131; more recently, Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII; Taheri Kandomabadi v. the Netherlands (dec.), nos. - EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05
LIU v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09
Failing such safeguards, the police or other State authorities would be able to encroach arbitrarily on rights protected by the Convention (see Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, §§ 123-124, 20 June 2002; Lupsa v. Romania, no. 10337/04, §§ 33-34, ECHR 2006-VII; Liu and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; and Nolan and K. v. Russia, no. 2512/04, § 71, 12 February 2009).
- EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 46897/07
EL MORABIT v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08
ABDOLKHANI ET KARIMNIA c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09
However, expulsion by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the individual concerned, if expelled, faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. In such a case, Article 3 implies an obligation not to expel the person in question to that country (see, most recent, Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, no. 30471/08, § 72, ECHR 2009-...). - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09
The Court will confine itself to noting that, according to its standing case-law, Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law to be available in respect only of such grievances as are "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131; more recently, Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII; Taheri Kandomabadi v. the Netherlands (dec.), nos. - EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 58243/00
LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09
The Court reiterates its settled case-law, according to which the expression "in accordance with the law" not only requires that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, for example, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V, and Olivieira v. the Netherlands, no. 33129/96, § 47, ECHR 2002-IV; see also, as a more recent authority, Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 59, 1 July 2008). - EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 6276/03
TAHERI KANDOMABADI v. the NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09
6276/03 and 6122/04, 29 June 2004; and El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010).
- EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 16870/11
KAHADAWA ARACHCHIGE AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS
The Court will confine itself to noting that, in accordance with its established case-law, Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law to be available only in respect of such grievances as are "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131; more recently, F.A.K. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30112/09, § 91, 23 October 2012; El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII; and Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 60538/13
A. v. THE NETHERLANDS