Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14+6, Art. 14 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 en ce qui concerne l'immunité parliamentaire Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 en ce qui concerne absence d'assistance judiciaire Non-violation de l'art. 8 Non-violation de l'art. 14+6 Non-violation de l'art. 13 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14+6, Art. 14 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1 as regards parliamentary immunity No violation of Art. 6-1 as regards lack of legal aid No violation of Art. 8 No violation of Art. 14+6 No violation of Art. 13 ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
• IRIS Merlin (Kurzinformation)

  Rechtsfall A. gegen das Vereinigte Königreich

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.03.2002 - 35373/97
• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 35373/97

Wird zitiert von ... (26)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EKMR, 17.01.1996 - 25646/94

  YOUNG v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 35373/97

  It notes in this connection that in Young v. Ireland (no. 25646/94, Commission decision of 17 January 1996, DR 84-A, p. 122) the Commission identified an underlying aim of the immunity accorded to members of the lower house of the Irish legislature as being to allow such members to engage in meaningful debate and to represent their constituents on matters of public interest without having to restrict their observations or edit their opinions because of the danger of being amenable to a court or other such authority.

  However, this case was superseded by Young v. Ireland, decided in 1996 (no. 25646/94, DR 84-A, p. 122), by Fayed v. the United Kingdom, decided by the Court in 1994 (Series A no. 294-B, p. 23), and by Osman v. the United Kingdom (Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, p. 3124) and Z and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 29392/95, ECHR 2001-V), which to my mind deal with immunities as being procedural bars on access to a court, rather than delimiting of the relevant cause of action.

• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 35373/97

  However, it would not be consistent with the rule of law in a democratic society, or with the basic principle underlying Article 6 § 1 - namely that civil claims must be capable of being submitted to a judge for adjudication - if a State could, without restraint or control by the Convention enforcement bodies, remove from the jurisdiction of the courts a whole range of civil claims or confer immunities from civil liability on large groups or categories of persons (see Fayed v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, pp. 49-50, § 65, and Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 47, ECHR 2001-XI).

  However, this case was superseded by Young v. Ireland, decided in 1996 (no. 25646/94, DR 84-A, p. 122), by Fayed v. the United Kingdom, decided by the Court in 1994 (Series A no. 294-B, p. 23), and by Osman v. the United Kingdom (Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, p. 3124) and Z and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 29392/95, ECHR 2001-V), which to my mind deal with immunities as being procedural bars on access to a court, rather than delimiting of the relevant cause of action.

• EKMR, 17.12.1976 - 7729/76

  AGEE v.the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 35373/97

  The Court notes that in Agee v. the United Kingdom (no. 7729/76, Commission decision of 17 December 1976, Decisions and Reports (DR) 7, p. 164) the Commission considered that the applicant did not have any right under United Kingdom law to the protection of his reputation in so far as it might be affected by statements made in Parliament.

  In this connection, the Government relied on a decision of the Commission in 1976 in Agee v. the United Kingdom (no. 7729/76, Decisions and Reports (DR) 7, p. 164).

 
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

  Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 35373/97

  Similarly, I still find it odd that an impairment of the very essence of the right of access to a court should be measured according to the principle of proportionality (a point I have already raised in my concurring opinion annexed to Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, ECHR 2001-VIII - see also, along similar lines, the concurring opinion of Judge Ress joined by Judge Zupancic).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 35373/97

  According to the Court's case-law, 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, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52).
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 35373/97

  In fact, I am not at all sure that it should be for a court, even one with the task of applying the Convention, "an instrument of European public order (ordre public) for the protection of individual human beings" (see Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), judgment of 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310, p. 31, § 93), to impose any particular model on the Contracting States in such a politically sensitive field.
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 35373/97

  It reiterates further that, despite the absence of a clause similar to Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention in the context of civil litigation, Article 6 § 1 may sometimes compel the State to provide for the assistance of a lawyer when such assistance proves indispensable for effective access to a court, either because legal representation is rendered compulsory, or by reason of the complexity of the procedure or of the case (see Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, pp. 14-16, § 26).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 35373/97

  The Court reiterates that the right of access to a court constitutes an element which is inherent in the right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, § 36).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 26958/95

  JERUSALEM c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 35373/97

  It is also noted that recently, in Jerusalem v. Austria (no. 26958/95, §§ 36 and 40, ECHR 2001-II), the Court stated that, while freedom of expression is important for everybody, it is especially so for an elected representative of the people.
• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 46311/99

  McVICAR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 35373/97

  There may be occasions, for example, when the possibility of appearing before the High Court in person will meet the requirements of Article 6 § 1, and where the guidance provided by the procedural rules and court directions, together with some access to legal advice and assistance, may be sufficient to provide an applicant with an effective opportunity to put his or her case (see also McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, §§ 46-62, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 35763/97

  AL-ADSANI c. ROYAUME-UNI

• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 53600/20

  Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz u.a. ./. Schweiz - Staatliche Maßnahmen gegen …

  De plus, la Cour a admis - quoique dans un autre contexte - que le maintien de la séparation des pouvoirs entre le législatif et le judiciaire constituait un but légitime en ce qui concerne la limitation du droit d'accès à un tribunal (A. c. Royaume-Uni, no 35373/97, § 77, CEDH 2002-X).

  (c) as the principles of subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation (both now, following the entry into force of Protocol No 15, provided for in the Preamble of the Convention and reflected, even if not exactly, in domestic law by the principle of the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary (see A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35373/97, § 77, ECHR 2002-X) make clear that, in relation to questions of social and economic policy requiring the careful weighing up of competing rights and interests (frequently, if not invariably in this context, including the rights and interests of parties not before the court), in a functioning democracy as envisaged by the Convention, this Court (and the courts more generally) take a subsidiary role to the democratically legitimated legislature and executive (or, in the context of an international treaty, the authorities of the Contracting Parties).

• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Ils n'ont dans aucun de ces cas constaté de violation de l'article 6 § 1 (Winer, décision précitée ; Munro c. Royaume-Uni, no 10594/83, décision de la Commission du 14 juillet 1987, DR 52, p. 158 ; H.S. et D.M. c. Royaume-Uni, no 21325/93, décision de la Commission du 5 mai 1993, non publiée ; Stewart-Brady c. Royaume-Uni, nos 27436/95 et 28406/95, décision de la Commission du 2 juillet 1997, DR 90-B, p. 45 ; McVicar c. Royaume-Uni, no 46311/99, CEDH 2002-III ; et A. c. Royaume-Uni, no 35373/97, CEDH 2002-X).
• EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 8917/05

  KART v. TURKEY

  The Chamber unanimously found that Article 6 § 1 was applicable, after pointing out that in the cases of A. v. the United Kingdom (no. 35373/97, ECHR 2002-X), Cordova v. Italy (no. 1) (no. 40877/98, ECHR 2003-I), Cordova v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 45649/99, ECHR 2003-I) and Tsalkitzis v. Greece (no. 11801/04, 16 November 2006) the Court had affirmed the principle of reviewing the compatibility of immunity from prosecution with the right to a court enshrined in Article 6 § 1. Seeing no reason to depart from that approach in this case, which concerned "a criminal charge" against the applicant, the Chamber considered that the procedure at issue fell within the scope of Article 6 § 1 (Chamber judgment, §§ 62-63).

  On this subject, however, the Court has already had occasion to say that the application of a rule of absolute parliamentary immunity cannot be said to exceed the margin of appreciation allowed to States in limiting an individual's right of access to a court (A. v. the United Kingdom judgment [GC], 35373/97, 17 December 2002, § 87).

 
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 46967/07

  C.G.I.L. ET COFFERATI c. ITALIE

  Dans ces conditions, la Cour estime que l'ingérence en question, qui était prévue par l'article 68 § 1 de la Constitution, poursuivait des buts légitimes, à savoir la protection du libre débat parlementaire et le maintien de la séparation des pouvoirs législatif et judiciaire (A. c. Royaume-Uni, no 35373/97, §§ 75-77, CEDH 2002-X ; Cordova (nos 1 et 2) précités, respectivement § 55 et § 56 ; De Jorio précité, § 49 ; Patrono, Cascini et Stefanelli, précité, § 59).

  Même l'immunité absolue des députés a été jugée légitime, car elle permet à ceux-ci de participer de façon constructive aux débats parlementaires et de représenter leurs électeurs sur des questions d'intérêt public en formulant librement leurs propos ou leurs opinions, sans risque de poursuites devant un tribunal ou une autre autorité (voir, notamment, A. c. Royaume-Uni, no 35373/97, § 75, CEDH 2002-X).

• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 42461/13

  KARÁCSONY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  La Cour reconnaît la nécessité d'une telle autonomie d'action au regard de l'immunité parlementaire (voir, à titre de comparaison, A. c. Royaume-Uni, no 35373/97, § 77, CEDH 2002-X), laquelle est un volet personnel de l'autonomie fonctionnelle de l'institution parlementaire.
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 22860/02

  WOS c. POLOGNE

  Furthermore, it is important to note that the present case, contrary to what is suggested by the Government, does not concern the issue of State immunity (see Al-Adsani, cited above; Fogarty v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 37112/97, ECHR 2001-XI; and Kalogeropoulou and Others, cited above) or any other form of immunity recognised in international law or generally accepted by the signatory States which could be regarded as a proportionate restriction on the right of access to a court (see Waite and Kennedy, cited above, concerning the immunity of international organisations, and A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35373/97, ECHR 2002-X, concerning the doctrine of parliamentary immunity), but a compensation scheme which derives from an international agreement.
• EuG, 31.05.2018 - T-770/16

  Das Gericht hebt die Beschlüsse auf, mit denen das Präsidium des Europäischen …

  Ein Eingriff in die im Rahmen dieser Organe ausgeübte Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung kann mithin nur durch zwingende Gründe gerechtfertigt werden (EGMR, 17. Dezember 2002, A./Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:2002:1217JUD003537397, § 79).
• EuG, 31.05.2018 - T-352/17

  Korwin-Mikke / Parlament

  Ein Eingriff in die im Rahmen dieser Organe ausgeübte Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung kann mithin nur durch zwingende Gründe gerechtfertigt werden (EGMR, 17. Dezember 2002, A./Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:2002:1217JUD003537397, § 79).
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 8917/05

  Kart ./. Türkei

  La Cour souligne tout d'abord que si elle a déjà eu l'occasion d'examiner la question de l'immunité accordée aux membres du parlement et ses incidences sur le droit d'accès à un tribunal (voir notamment A. c. Royaume-Uni, no 35373/97, CEDH 2002-X ; Cordova c. Italie (no 1), no 40877/98, CEDH 2003-I ; Cordova c. Italie (no 2), no 45649/99, CEDH 2003-I ; Tsalkitzis c. Grèce, no 11801/04, 16 novembre 2006), elle n'a encore jamais eu à connaître de circonstances dans lesquelles c'est le bénéficiaire de l'immunité parlementaire qui se plaint des conséquences de cette immunité sur son droit d'accès à un tribunal.
• EGMR, 22.03.2005 - 28290/95

  GÜNGÖR c. TURQUIE

  En matière d'immunité parlementaire, la Cour rappelle qu'elle a estimé compatible avec la Convention une immunité qui couvrait les déclarations faites au cours des débats parlementaires au sein des chambres législatives et tendait à la protection des intérêts du Parlement dans son ensemble, par opposition à ceux de ses membres pris individuellement (A. c. Royaume-Uni, no 35373/97, §§ 84-85, CEDH 2002-X).
• EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 29864/03

  MULOSMANI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 26218/06

  ONORATO c. ITALIE
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 26.06.2008 - C-200/07

  Marra
• EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 18499/08

  SHAMOYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 44357/13

  SZÉL ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE
• EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 23053/02

  IELO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 31012/19

  BAKOYANNI v. GREECE
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 33352/02

  KELLER v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 70434/01

  MAHON and KENT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 10.06.2003 - 49606/99

  MOND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 34971/02

  ESPOSITO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 35989/03

  RAMADAN & AHJREDINI v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 14832/11

  HOON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 14492/03

  PARAMSOTHY v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 10.06.2003 - 49589/99

  TAYLOR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 6276/03

  TAHERI KANDOMABADI v. the NETHERLANDS