Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  P.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 13, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 14+P1-1 No violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.08.2004 - 6638/03
• EGMR, 19.07.2005 - 6638/03

Wird zitiert von ... (30)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2005 - 6638/03

  Rn. 34 The Court reiterates that Article 13 does not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State's primary legislation to be challenged before a national authority on grounds that it is contrary to the Convention (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 47, § 85; Willis v. United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 62, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

  McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2005 - 6638/03

  The Court recalls that it has in some cases found that differences in treatment on the basis of marital status has had objective and reasonable justification (see, for example, McMichael v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B, § 98, concerning legislation which did not grant automatic parental responsibility to unmarried fathers who inevitably varied in their commitment and interest in, or even knowledge of, their children).
• EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2005 - 6638/03

  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, § 37, ECHR 2000-X).
• EKMR, 11.11.1986 - 11089/84

  LINDSAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2005 - 6638/03

  The Government accepted that the QMPA as a tax allowance set off against the liability to pay income tax fell within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. However, insofar as the applicant complained that the difference in treatment in this respect flowed from his unmarried status, he could not claim to be in an analogous position to a married couple (see Lindsay v. United Kingdom, application no. 11089/84, Commission decision of 11 November 1986, DR 49, p. 181; Shackell v. United Kingdom, no. 45851/99, (dec.) 27 April 2000).
• EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 45851/99

  SHACKELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2005 - 6638/03

  The Government accepted that the QMPA as a tax allowance set off against the liability to pay income tax fell within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. However, insofar as the applicant complained that the difference in treatment in this respect flowed from his unmarried status, he could not claim to be in an analogous position to a married couple (see Lindsay v. United Kingdom, application no. 11089/84, Commission decision of 11 November 1986, DR 49, p. 181; Shackell v. United Kingdom, no. 45851/99, (dec.) 27 April 2000).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10

  SINISTAJ v. MONTENEGRO ant 2 other applications

  The Court recalls that the purpose of the six-month rule is to promote security of the law, ensure that cases raising issues under the Convention are examined within a reasonable time, and protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being in a situation of uncertainty for a long period of time (see P.M. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 6638/03, 24 August 2004).
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 30859/10

  SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Its primary purpose is to maintain legal certainty by ensuring that cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with in a reasonable time and to prevent the authorities and other persons concerned from being kept in a state of uncertainty for a long period of time (see Sabri Günes v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, §§ 48-9, 29 June 2012, and P.M. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 6638/03, 24 August 2004).
• EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 63684/00

  HOBBS, RICHARD, WALSH AND GEEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  They cited in their support three cases where the Court had awarded compensation for the wrongful levying of taxes or refusal of a tax allowance (S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, ECHR 2002-III; Darby v. Sweden, judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187; P.M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 6638/03, 19 July 2005) and also the case of Willis, cited above.

• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 65938/09

  KEMEVUAKO v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Applicants must therefore pursue their applications with reasonable expedition, after any initial introductory contact (see P.M. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 6638/03, 24 August 2004).
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 47146/11

  [ENG]

  Applicants and their representatives must therefore pursue their applications with reasonable expedition, after any initial introductory contact (P.M. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 6638/03, 24 August 2004).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 2611/07

  [ENG]

  Applicants must therefore pursue their applications with reasonable expedition, after any initial introductory contact (see P.M. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 6638/03, 24 August 2004).
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 33631/06

  [ENG]

  The Government submitted that Article 13 does not guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State's primary legislation to be challenged on grounds that it is contrary to the Convention (P.M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 6638/03, § 34, 19 July 2005 and further references therein).
• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 20558/04

  BUCURESTEANU c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour rappelle que la règle des six mois a pour finalité de servir la sécurité juridique et de veiller à ce que les affaires soulevant des questions au regard de la Convention soient examinées dans un délai raisonnable, tout en évitant aux autorités et autres personnes concernées d'être pendant longtemps dans l'incertitude (P.M. c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 6638/03, 24 août 2004 et Bulut et Yavuz c. Turquie (déc.), no 73065/01, 28 mai 2002).
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 38419/08

  DUKOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  The Court recalls that the purpose of the six-month rule is to promote security of the law, ensure that cases raising issues under the Convention are examined within a reasonable time, and protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being in a situation of uncertainty for a long period of time (see, for example, P.M. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 6638/03, 24 August 2004).
• EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 19027/07

  SMERTIN v. RUSSIA

  Applicants must therefore pursue their applications with reasonable expedition, after any initial introductory contact (see Kemevuako v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65938/09, 1 June 2010, § 20 and P.M. v. the United Kingdom (dec), no. 6638/03, 24 August 2004).
• EGMR, 12.03.2013 - 5051/02

  ALECU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 16234/05

  ZVEREV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 648/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 67708/01

  ANDRITA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 26178/04

  MORENO CARMONA c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 41367/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 60189/15

  KASHLAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 15573/07

  CAPIN v. MONTENEGRO and 1 other aoolication
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 46055/11

  GHELLAM c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 38566/04

  NICOLESCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 13776/11

  YARTSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 11219/02

  TROJANCZYK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 26250/02

  WIDAWSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 58311/08

  KRAVTSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 42899/11

  TEKIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 54846/08

  ÖZDEMIR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 43965/08

  POTOCNIK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 5801/05

  JAASKA v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 27556/04

  F. v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 9728/05

  [ENG]