Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HARVEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HARVEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 80237/13

  The dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise; and finally, the result of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not being sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 144, ECHR 2017).
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 80237/13

  Insofar as the gravamen of the applicant's complaint is a challenge to the compliance of the ISA with Article 6 § 1, the Court recalls that even where an adjudicatory body determining disputes over "civil rights and obligations" does not comply with Article 6 § 1 in some respect, no violation of the Convention can be found if the proceedings before that body are "subject to subsequent control by a judicial body that has full jurisdiction and does provide the guarantees of Article 6 § 1" (Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, § 29).
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 52335/12

  PEACOCK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 80237/13

  This Court agrees and accordingly considers that by only raising this argument at a late stage, when it was unlikely to be considered in substance, the applicant did not provide the domestic courts, with the opportunity which is in principle intended to be afforded to a Contracting State by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, namely the opportunity of addressing, and thereby preventing or putting right, the particular Convention violation alleged against it (see Peacock v. the United Kingdom, § 40, 52335/12 [Dec.] 5 January 2016).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.06.2026 - 27313/23

  MILIUTÄ- AND DANAUSKIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA

  Furthermore, the Government did not explicitly allege that in their constitutional complaint the applicants had failed to properly raise or substantiate their arguments that Article 547 § 1 was not compatible with the Constitution, or that they had otherwise used that avenue improperly (compare and contrast Traina v. Portugal (dec.), no. 59431/11, §§ 19 and 24-30, 21 March 2017, and, in the context of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, Harvey v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 80237/13, §§ 63-64, 21 November 2017; S.R. v. Norway (dec.), no. 43927/17, §§ 31-35, 21 April 2020; and Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt v. Hungary [GC], no. 201/17, §§ 53-57, 20 January 2020).
• EGMR, 12.05.2026 - 60964/21

  MIRONIUK v. LITHUANIA

  However, having regard to the elements submitted by the applicant, the Court is unable to conclude that, in this case, the applicant failed to provide the domestic courts with the opportunity which is in principle intended to be afforded to a Contracting State by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, namely the opportunity of addressing, and thereby preventing or putting right, the particular Convention violation alleged against it (compare also Jalloh v. Germany (dec.), no. 54810/00, 26 October 2004, and Harvey v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 80237/13, § 64, 21 November 2017).
• EGMR, 28.02.2023 - 39200/16

  BENZIANE c. GRÈCE

  In so far as the applicant alleged that the authorities' assessment of the risk of absconding was wrong, it is not for the Court to examine the level of risk which the applicant posed (see Harvey v. the United Kingdom, no. 80237/13, § 61, 21 November 2017).
• EGMR, 21.04.2020 - 43927/17

  S.R. v. NORWAY

  It follows that it is essentially inconsistent with the domestic civil procedural system and the role that the Supreme Court plays therein for an applicant to lodge a Convention complaint for the first time before the Supreme Court; it follows also that an applicant cannot expect a complaint lodged for the first time at that level of appellate jurisdiction to be decided on the merits (see similarly, for example, Harvey v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 80237/13, § 64, 21 November 2017).
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 25859/17

  SCHUETT v. GERMANY

  It relies on its considerations in Harvey v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 80237/13, §§ 61-62 and 67, 21 November 2017) to adjudicate that complaint.