Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LUSTIG-PREAN AND BECKETT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 14 MRK
  Admissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 31417/96, 32377/96
• EGMR, 27.09.1999 - 31417/96
• EGMR, 25.07.2000 - 31417/96

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.09.1999 - 32377/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 31417/96

  Application no. 32377/96 by John BECKETT against the United Kingdom[Note2].

  Having regard to the application introduced on 11 July 1996 by John Beckett against the United Kingdom and registered on 22 July 1996 under file no. 32377/96;.

• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 31417/96

  However, the Government underlines the wide margin of appreciation which is properly open to a State in this context (Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 25, § 59) by reference to four matters.
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 31417/96

  The Government further submit that there is either no separate issue arising under Article 14 (Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, pp. 25-26, §§ 64-70), or that any difference in treatment is justified for the same reasons submitted in the context of Article 8. In such circumstances, the Government submit that the applicants' complaints are manifestly ill-founded (within the meaning of Article 35 § 3) or, in the alternative, do not give rise to a violation of the Convention.
• EGMR, 19.12.1994 - 15153/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 31417/96

  Furthermore, and as to the military context of the applications, the applicants point out that the Court's jurisprudence provides that the demands of 'pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness' apply to service personnel as to other persons, that fundamental rights must be tolerated in the army of a democratic State just as it must be in the society that such an army serves, and that it is for the Court to assess whether the Government have substantiated its concerns about the threat to military discipline by specific examples (Vereinigung Demokratischer Soldaten ï��sterreichs and Gubi v. Austria judgment of 19 December 1994, Series A no. 302, p. 17, §§ 36 and 38).
• EGMR, 27.03.2001 - 25186/94

  SUTHERLAND v. UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 31417/96

  Moreover, Convention jurisprudence establishes that the Government cannot rely on pure prejudice to justify interference with private life (Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom judgment loc. cit., pp. 23-24, § 60 and No. 25186/94 Sutherland v. the United Kingdom, Comm.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LUSTIG-PREAN AND BECKETT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (ARTICLE 41)

  Art. 8, Art. 41 MRK
  Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 31417/96
• EGMR, 27.09.1999 - 31417/96
• EGMR, 25.07.2000 - 31417/96, 32377/96

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.09.1999 - 32377/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2000 - 31417/96

  (Applications nos. 31417/96 and 32377/96).

  The case originated in two applications (nos. 31417/96 and 32377/96) against the United Kingdom lodged on 23 April 1996 and 11 July 1996, respectively with the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by two British nationals, Mr Duncan Lustig-Prean and Mr John Beckett ("the first and second applicants").

  No separate issue was found to arise under Article 14 of the Convention (Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. the United Kingdom, nos. 31417/96 and 32377/96, 27.9.99, §§ 105 and 109).

• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2000 - 31417/96

  Given the potential for efficient co-ordination between those legal representatives, the charges for the services of the total number of fee earners representing the first applicant cannot all be considered to have been "necessarily incurred" or to be "reasonable as to quantum" (Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, p. 37, § 80).
• EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2000 - 31417/96

  It recalled that one of the reasons why it considered Mrs Vogt's dismissal from her post as a school teacher to be a "very severe measure", was the finding that school teachers in her situation would "almost certainly be deprived of the opportunity to exercise the sole profession for which they have a calling, for which they have been trained and in which they have acquired skills and experience" (Vogt v. Germany judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, p. 29, § 60).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 6538/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2000 - 31417/96

  Accordingly, the Court considers that the question to be decided is the level of just satisfaction, in respect of both past and future pecuniary loss, which it is necessary to award to each applicant, the matter to be determined by the Court at its discretion, having regard to what is equitable (Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom judgment (former Article 50) of 6 November 1989, Series A no. 38, p. 9, § 15).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen