Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 68890/01 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,42298) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BLAKE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BLAKE c. ROYAUME-UNI [Extraits]
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Partiellement recevable partiellement irrecevable (französisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 68890/01
- EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 68890/01
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (25)
- EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91
Radikalenerlaß
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 68890/01
Rn. 130 The applicant maintained that, although he had expressed himself, the account of profits was clearly intended by the House of Lords to have "a chilling effect" on others comparable to the confiscation of material (Müller and Others v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133) or to damages in a defamation case (Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B) or to dismissal in an employment case (Vogt v. Germany, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323).The Court recalls that the penalty imposed on an individual can, of itself, constitute an interference with an applicant's right to freedom of expression (the above-cited Tolstoy judgment and, for example, Skałka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 41, 27 May 2003) even if that penalty did not strictly speaking prevent the individual from expressing himself (for example, Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, §§ 35 and 44 and Vogt v. Germany, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, § 44).
- EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98
Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 68890/01
As a result, the "general principles of international law" (relied on by the applicant) do not require separate examination (see Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi (Bosphorus Airways) v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, § 142, ECHR 2005-...). - EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 68890/01
As to the second complaint concerning foreseeability, the Court recalls the two requirements that flow from the expression "prescribed by law" (Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, §§ 47 and 49).
- EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 68890/01
The fact of having had the benefit of legal representation at key stages of the proceedings is an important factor (Airey v Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, § 26 and McVicar v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 May 2002, §§ 50 and 60). - EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 68890/01
Rn. 130 The applicant maintained that, although he had expressed himself, the account of profits was clearly intended by the House of Lords to have "a chilling effect" on others comparable to the confiscation of material (Müller and Others v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133) or to damages in a defamation case (Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B) or to dismissal in an employment case (Vogt v. Germany, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323). - EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 68890/01
Indeed, the domestic courts have always afforded great importance to the protection of the secrecy of the security services (see the domestic judgments described in Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216). - EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 68890/01
The Court recalls that Article 6 § 1 may sometimes compel the State to provide for the assistance of a lawyer when such assistance proves indispensable for an effective access to court either because legal representation is rendered compulsory, as is done by the domestic law of certain Contracting States for various types of litigation, or by reason of the complexity of the procedure or of the case (Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 61, ECHR 2005-...). - EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88
POITRIMOL c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 68890/01
Rn. 108 In addition, while criminal proceedings in absentia require legal representation (Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A), the voluntary absence from civil proceedings of an applicant due to his being a fugitive from justice cannot accord a right to legal representation or aid in such civil proceedings. - EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 68890/01
Rn. 139 The Court will also take into account, in assessing foreseeability, the general approach of domestic courts to similar matters (Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, judgment of 29 October 1992, Series A no. 246-A, § 60 where the Court took into account the "high threshold of protection of the unborn provided under Irish law generally"). - EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92
S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 68890/01
The "prescribed by law" aspect of Article 10 cannot be read as outlawing the gradual clarification through the common law of the remedies available for breach of contract (mutatis mutandis, S.W. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-B, § 36). - EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85
- EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12945/87
- EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91
TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87
SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE
- EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 43425/98
Meinungsfreiheit (konstitutive Bedeutung in der Demokratie; Eingriff; …
- EGMR, 08.02.2001 - 47936/99
PITKEVICH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 56568/00
Y c. NORVEGE
- EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 62902/00
ZOLLMANN c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 55120/00
INDEPENDENT NEWS AND MEDIA AND INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS IRELAND LIMITED v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 08.04.2003 - 15814/02
PORTER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 11.04.1991 - 14644/89
TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD ; NEIL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75
- EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86
BENDENOUN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89
ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79
Minelli ./. Schweiz
dejure.org
Übersicht EGMR
Einloggen | Registrieren
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Externe Links öffnen jetzt in einem neuen Tab. Sie können dieses Verhalten auch auf Ihrer Einstellungsseite ändern.
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 68890/01 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,48138) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BLAKE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 68890/01
- EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 68890/01
Wird zitiert von ... (5) Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 68890/01
The applicant had, they considered, brought the proceedings on himself as a self-confessed traitor who wished to profit from his treachery (McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, § 219), there was no indication of any emotional stress or anxiety caused by the delay and no evidence that the money was of any real consequence to the applicant as he lived in, and was supported by, the Russian State. - EGMR, 18.10.1982 - 6878/75
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 68890/01
The Court does not find that any domestic costs or expenses to which the applicant referred were incurred in order to try to prevent the violation established by the Court or to obtain redress therefore (Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium (Article 50), judgment of 18 October 1982, Series A no. 54, § 17). - EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 68890/01
While it is conceivable that in certain circumstances the period might begin earlier (Golder v. United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, § 32), this is exceptional and has been accepted where, for example, certain preliminary steps were a necessary preamble to the proceedings (K. v. Italy, no. 38805/97, § 35, ECHR 2004-VIII).
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 68890/01
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 10.07.1984 - 8990/80
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 68890/01
The State remains responsible for the efficiency of its system (Guincho v. Portugal, judgment of 10 July 1984, Series A no. 81, § 38) and the manner in which it provides for mechanisms to comply with the reasonable time requirement - whether by automatic time-limits and directions or some other method - is for it to decide. - EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 44808/98
MITCHELL AND HOLLOWAY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 68890/01
The Court considers that the delay before the House of Lords derived, to a large extent, from the failure by the State to take adequate steps to advance the proceedings and, more generally, to organise its system in such a way as to meet its Convention obligations (see also Mitchell and Holloway v. the United Kingdom, no. 44808/98, § 54, 17 December 2002). - EGMR, 29.07.2003 - 43185/98
PRICE AND LOWE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 68890/01
If a State allows proceedings to continue beyond the "reasonable time" prescribed by Article 6 of the Convention without doing anything to advance them, it will be responsible for the resultant delay (see Price and Lowe v. the United Kingdom, nos. 43185/98 and 43186/98, § 23, 29 July 2003, together with further references therein). - EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 38805/97
K. c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 68890/01
While it is conceivable that in certain circumstances the period might begin earlier (Golder v. United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, § 32), this is exceptional and has been accepted where, for example, certain preliminary steps were a necessary preamble to the proceedings (K. v. Italy, no. 38805/97, § 35, ECHR 2004-VIII).
- EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 29864/03
MULOSMANI v. ALBANIA
However, a waiver must not run counter to any important public interest, must be established in an unequivocal manner and requires minimum guarantees commensurate to the waiver's importance (see Blake v. the United Kingdom, no. 68890/01, § 127, 26 September 2006). - EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 73911/16
LARRAÑAGA ARANDO v. SPAIN and 5 other applications
In the absence of a "criminal charge", where no such criminal proceedings are, or have been in existence, Article 6 § 2 has been found not to be applicable (see Zollman v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62902/00, ECHR 2003-XII; Blake v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 68890/01, §§ 123-24, 25 October 2005; Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, 12 May 2015; and Sharxhi and Others v. Albania, no. 10613/16, § 178, 11 January 2018). - EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 75529/16
MARTÍNEZ AGIRRE AND OTHERS v. SPAIN
In the absence of a "criminal charge", where no such criminal proceedings are, or have been in existence, Article 6 § 2 has been found not to be applicable (see Zollman v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62902/00, ECHR 2003-XII; Blake v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 68890/01, §§ 123-24, 25 October 2005; Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, 12 May 2015; and Sharxhi and Others v. Albania, no. 10613/16, § 178, 11 January 2018). - EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 31634/18
RIMSÄ'VICS v. LATVIA and 1 other application
In the absence of a "criminal charge", where no such criminal proceedings are, or have been in existence, Article 6 § 2 has been found not to be applicable (see Larrañaga Arando and Others, cited above, § 40; Zollman v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62902/00, ECHR 2003-XII; and Blake v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 68890/01, §§ 123-24, 25 October 2005). - EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 75757/14
BOGNÁR v. HUNGARY
It notes, however, that since the applicant's application to the administrative authority was a necessary preliminary step to the proceedings (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 65, ECHR 2007-II, and Blake v. the United Kingdom, no. 68890/01, § 40, 26 September 2006 ) the period began to run on 14 January 2004 (see paragraph 9 above).
dejure.org
Übersicht EGMR
Einloggen | Registrieren
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Externe Links öffnen jetzt in einem neuen Tab. Sie können dieses Verhalten auch auf Ihrer Einstellungsseite ändern.