Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALATULKKILA AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of P1-1 No violation of Art. 14+P1-1 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 33538/96
• EGMR, 28.07.2005 - 33538/96

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 27824/95

  POSTI AND RAHKO v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2005 - 33538/96

  An account of domestic law can also be found in the Court's judgment in Posti and Rahko v. Finland (no. 27824/95, §§ 18-30, 24 September 2002).

  Although Article 6 cannot guarantee a right of access to a court with power to invalidate or override a law enacted by the legislature (see, for instance, Ruiz-Mateos and Others v. Spain, application no. 14324/88, Commission decision of 19 April 1991, DR 69, p. 227; Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, ECHR 2002-VII, § 52), the Court may examine the direct effect of the decisions of the Finnish-Swedish Frontier Rivers Commission which prohibited fishing under the powers bestowed on them by various decrees.

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2005 - 33538/96

  Insofar as compensation was not available as such for loss of leisure or sporting possibilities, the Court has previously stated that the national authorities must enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining not only the necessity of the measure of control concerned but also the types of loss resulting from the measure for which compensation will be made; the legislature's judgment in this connection will in principle be respected unless it is manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable (see Lithgow v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 51, § 122, and Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, ECHR 1999-III, § 75).
• EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95

  CAMP ET BOURIMI c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2005 - 33538/96

  Moreover, the Contracting States enjoy a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment (see Camp and Bourimi v. the Netherlands, no. 28369/95, ECHR 2000-X, § 37).

 
• EKMR, 19.04.1991 - 14324/88

  RUIZ-MATEOS ; AUTRES contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2005 - 33538/96

  Although Article 6 cannot guarantee a right of access to a court with power to invalidate or override a law enacted by the legislature (see, for instance, Ruiz-Mateos and Others v. Spain, application no. 14324/88, Commission decision of 19 April 1991, DR 69, p. 227; Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, ECHR 2002-VII, § 52), the Court may examine the direct effect of the decisions of the Finnish-Swedish Frontier Rivers Commission which prohibited fishing under the powers bestowed on them by various decrees.
• EGMR, 25.11.1993 - 14282/88

  ZANDER v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2005 - 33538/96

  Finally, the right must be of a "civil" character (see, for example, Zander v. Sweden, judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-B, p. 38, § 22).
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2005 - 33538/96

  The term "right" must nevertheless be given an autonomous interpretation under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, König v. Germany, judgment of 28 June 1986, Series A no. 27, pp. 29-30, §§ 88-89).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2005 - 33538/96

  While it is true that the examination of an annulment or reopening request will not generally satisfy the requirements of Article 6 § 1 where such is an extraordinary remedy with limited scope of review and not involving an examination of the merits (see, e.g., Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 31, § 86), the Court recalls that a certain respect must be accorded to decisions taken by administrative authorities in particular in specialised areas of the law, such as planning which involved the exercise of discretion involving a multitude of local factors inherent in the choice and implementation of policies (see, mutatis mutandis, Zumtobel v. Austria, judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-A, § 32; Bryan v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-A, § 47; Buckley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, § 75).
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

  ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2005 - 33538/96

  While it is true that the examination of an annulment or reopening request will not generally satisfy the requirements of Article 6 § 1 where such is an extraordinary remedy with limited scope of review and not involving an examination of the merits (see, e.g., Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 31, § 86), the Court recalls that a certain respect must be accorded to decisions taken by administrative authorities in particular in specialised areas of the law, such as planning which involved the exercise of discretion involving a multitude of local factors inherent in the choice and implementation of policies (see, mutatis mutandis, Zumtobel v. Austria, judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-A, § 32; Bryan v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-A, § 47; Buckley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, § 75).
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2005 - 33538/96

  A waiver can be made explicitly or tacitly, in the latter case for example by refraining from submitting or maintaining a request for a hearing (see, among other authorities, Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, p. 20, § 66; and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, pp. 19-20, § 58).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2005 - 33538/96

  A waiver can be made explicitly or tacitly, in the latter case for example by refraining from submitting or maintaining a request for a hearing (see, among other authorities, Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, p. 20, § 66; and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, pp. 19-20, § 58).
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM