Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIHAL v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02

  ZARB ADAMI c. MALTE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 31303/08

  Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention, Article 4 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 (see Zarb Adami v. Malta, no. 17209/02, § 43, ECHR 2006-VIII).
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 31303/08

  The Government relied on the Court's judgment in the case of Van der Mussele v. Belgium (23 November 1983, Series A no. 70) and the decision of the Constitutional Court of 5 November 2008 in the unrelated case no. I. ÚS 377/08 (see paragraph 42 above).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 31303/08

  The Court reiterates that it has only limited power to examine complaints about errors of fact or law allegedly committed by national courts (for a recapitulation of the relevant case-law see, among other authorities, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 31303/08

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88

  KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 31303/08

  This being so, paragraph 3 serves as an aid to the interpretation of paragraph 2. The four subparagraphs of paragraph 3, notwithstanding their diversity, are grounded on the governing ideas of the general interest, social solidarity and what is normal in the ordinary course of affairs (see Van der Mussele, cited above, 38; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, § 22, Series A no. 291-B; and Zarb Adami, cited above, § 44).

• EGMR, 06.02.2018 - 7442/08

  ADIGÜZEL c. TURQUIE

  La Cour renvoie à sa jurisprudence pertinente en matière de l'article 4 de la Convention (Van der Mussele, précité, §§ 32, 34 et 38, Karlheinz Schmidt, précité, Siliadin c. France, no 73316/01, §§ 112, 115 et 116, CEDH 2005VII, Zarb Adami, précité, § 44, Rantsev c. Chypre et Russie, no 25965/04, § 283, CEDH 2010 (extraits), Steindel c. Allemagne (déc.), no 29878/07, 14 septembre 2010, Stummer c. Autriche [GC], no 37452/02, §§ 116 à 118 et 120, CEDH 2011, Mihal c. Slovaquie (déc.), no 31303/08, § 64, 28 juin 2011, Bucha c. Slovaquie (déc.), no 43259/07, § 39, 20 septembre 2011, Graziani-Weiss c. Autriche, no 31950/06, §§ 36 à 38, 18 octobre 2011, et Chitos c. Grèce, no 51637/12, § 79, CEDH 2015 (extraits)).
• EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 75577/17

  BARBAROV v. UKRAINE

  This being so, paragraph 3 serves as an aid to the interpretation of paragraph 2. The four subparagraphs of paragraph 3, notwithstanding their diversity, are grounded on the governing ideas of the general interest, social solidarity and what is normal in the ordinary course of affairs (see, for example, Mihal v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 31303/08, § 64, 28 June 2011, with further references therein).