Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SMITS, KLEYN, METTLER TOLEDO B.V. ET AL., RAYMAKERS, VERENIGING LANDELIJK OVERLEG BETUWEROUTE and VAN HELDEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 39032/97

  On the basis of the information available, the Court is satisfied that the Government's purpose is to ensure the continued economic well-being of the country - an aim which is legitimate under both of the Articles concerned (cf., as to Article 8 of the Convention, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, § 42; and, as to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Pressos Compania Naviera SA and Others v. Belgium judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, § 37).

  In particular, it must examine whether the decision-making process leading to measures of interference was fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the individual by Article 8 when balanced against the general interest of the community (cf. Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 19, § 44; Buckley v. United Kingdom judgment of 25 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, §§ 74-75; and Jane Smith v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25154/94, 18.1.2001, §§ 97-99).

• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 14570/89

  PROCOLA c. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 39032/97

  Mr and Mrs Raymakers cited the European Court's judgment of 28 September 1995 in the case of Procola v. Luxemburg (Series A no. 326).

  They refer in this respect to the Court's findings in its judgment of 28 September 1995 in the case of Procola v. Luxembourg (Series A no. 326).

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 39032/97

  For the remainder, they take the form of an "interference" with the applicants" "peaceful enjoyment of [their] possessions", which is to be considered under the first sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (cf. Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, § 65).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 39032/97

  On the basis of the information available, the Court is satisfied that the Government's purpose is to ensure the continued economic well-being of the country - an aim which is legitimate under both of the Articles concerned (cf., as to Article 8 of the Convention, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, § 42; and, as to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Pressos Compania Naviera SA and Others v. Belgium judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, § 37).
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 39032/97

  The Court recalls that it is normally for the national courts to decide whether it is necessary to obtain evidence additional to that which is already available (cf, mutatis mutandis, Bricmont v. Belgium judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, § 89; and H. v. France judgment of 24 October 1989, Series A no. 162-A, §§ 60-61).

• EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 65542/12

  STICHTING MOTHERS OF SREBRENICA AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  La Cour n'a pas reconnu la qualité de requérant à des organes non gouvernementaux créés dans le seul but de défendre les droits de personnes se prétendant victimes (Smits, Kleyn, Mettler Toledo B.V. et al., Raymakers, Vereniging Landelijk Overleg Betuweroute et Van Helden c. Pays-Bas (déc.), nos 39032/97, 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98, 46664/99 et 61707/00, 3 mai 2001, s'agissant du requérant Vereniging Landelijk Overleg Betuweroute) ; elle a fait de même s'agissant d'organisations non gouvernementales dont le but exprès était de défendre les droits de l'homme (Van Melle autres c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 19221/08, 29 septembre 2009, concernant le requérant Liga voor de Rechten van de Mens).
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 48609/06

  NENCHEVA ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  Ce statut n'a pas non plus été accordé lorsque les associations avaient été fondées dans le seul but de défendre les droits des victimes prétendues (Smits, Kleyn, Mettler Toledo B.V. et al., Raymakers, Vereniging Landelijk Overleg Betuweroute et Van Helden c. Pays-Bas (déc.), nos 39032/97, 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98, 46664/99 et 61707/00, 3 mai 2001), même s'agissant d'organisations non gouvernementales qui avaient pour but essentiel la défense des droits de l'homme (Van Melle et autres c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 19221/08, 29 septembre 2009, en tant que la requête émanait de la Liga voor de Rechten van de Mens).
• EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 44099/04

  FATEYENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  39032/97 et al., 3 May 2001).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 39315/06

  UITGEVERSMAATSCHAPPIJ DE TELEGRAAF B.V. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  39032/97, 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98, 46664/99 and 61707/00, 3 May 2001, in respect of the applicant Vereniging Landelijk Overleg Betuweroute).
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 57602/09

  NASSAU VERZEKERING MAATSCHAPPIJ N.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  39032/97, 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98, 46664/99 and 61707/00, 3 May 2001, in respect of the applicant Vereniging Landelijk Overleg Betuweroute); and even though they might be non-governmental organisations whose very purpose was to defend human rights (see Van Melle and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 19221/08, ECHR 29 September 2009, in respect of the applicant Liga voor de Rechten van de Mens).