Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  X. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 3, Art. ... 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 4, Art. 4 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  X. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 3, Art. ... 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 4, Art. 4 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c MRK
  Partiellement recevable partiellement irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (20)

• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01

  HIRST c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 2)

  For example, prisoners may not be ill-treated, subjected to inhuman or degrading punishment or conditions contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI, and Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II); they continue to enjoy the right to respect for family life (Ploski v. Poland, no. 26761/95, 12 November 2002, and X v. the United Kingdom, no. 9054/80, Commission decision of 8 October 1982, DR 30, p. 113); the right to freedom of expression (Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 126-45, ECHR 2003-XII, and T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission's report of 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84); the right to practise their religion (Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, §§ 167-71, ECHR 2003-V); the right of effective access to a lawyer or to a court for the purposes of Article 6 (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, and Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18); the right to respect for correspondence (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61); and the right to marry (Hamer v. the United Kingdom, no. 7114/75, Commission's report of 13 December 1979, DR 24, p. 5, and Draper v. the United Kingdom, no. 8186/78, Commission's report of 10 July 1980, DR 24, p. 72).
• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04

  DICKSON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  For example, prisoners may not be ill-treated, subjected to inhuman or degrading punishment or conditions contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI; Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II); they continue to enjoy the right to respect for family life (Ploski v. Poland, no. 26761/95, judgment of 12 November 2002; X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9054/80, Commission decision of 8 October 1982, DR 30, p. 113), the right to freedom of expression (Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 126-145, ECHR 2003-XII, T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission report of 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84), the right to practise their religion (Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, §§ 167-171, ECHR 2003-V), the right of effective access to a lawyer or to court for the purposes of Article 6 (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A, no. 80; Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A, no. 18), the right to respect for correspondence (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61) and the right to marry (Hamer v. the United Kingdom, no. 7114/75, Commission report of 13 December 1979, DR 24, p. 5; Draper v. the United Kingdom, no. 8186/78, Commission report of 10 July 1980, DR 24, p. 72).
• EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 36882/05

  NILSEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The position of the domestic authorities went against this Court's jurisprudence (notably, T v. the United Kingdom, application no. 8231/78 (1983) 49 DR 5; the above cited cases of Bamber and Hirst; Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61; Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, ECHR 2007-XIII; and Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts)).

  For example,... they continue to enjoy... the right to freedom of expression (Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 126-45, ECHR 2003-XII, and T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission's report of 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84);... the right to respect for correspondence (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61);.

 
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 74025/01

  HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 2)

  The mere fact of imprisonment has not been found sufficient to justify the imposition of blanket restrictions on the right of a prisoner to correspond (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A, no. 61), to have effective access to a lawyer or to court (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, Series A, no. 80; Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, Series A, no. 18), to have access to his family (X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9054/80, Commission decision of 8 October 1982, DR 30, p. 113), to practise his religion (Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, ECHR 2003-..., §§ 167-171), to exercise freedom of expression (T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission report, 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84) or to marry (Hamer v. the United Kingdom, no. 7114/75, Commission report, 13 December 1979, DR 24, p. 5; Draper v. the United Kingdom, no. 8186/78, Commission report, 10 July 1980, DR 24, p. 72).
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 40225/02

  SOTIROPOULOU c. GRECE

  Par conséquent, ils continuent de jouir du droit à la liberté d'expression (Yankov c. Bulgarie, no 39084/97, §§ 126-145, CEDH 2003-XII (extraits), T. c. Royaume-Uni, no 8231/78, rapport de la Commission, 12 octobre 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84) et toute restriction à ce droit doit être justifiée, même si pareille justification peut tout à fait reposer sur les considérations de sécurité, notamment la prévention du crime et la défense de l'ordre, qui découlent inévitablement des circonstances de l'emprisonnement.
• EKMR, 11.01.1995 - 18959/91

  S.E. K. v. SWITZERLAND

  Domestic Courts may thus exercise some discretion, provided that the Convention and particularly the right to a fair hearing are respected in deciding whether the hearing of a defence witness is likely to help to establish the truth (No. 8231/78, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 5).
• EKMR, 28.11.1995 - 23413/94

  L.C.B. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  The Commission recalls that, though the applicant raises these complaints under Articles 10 and 11 (Art. 10, 11) of the Convention, the lex specialis as regards alleged interference with communication of information or ideas by correspondence is Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention and it is further recalled that communication by telephone is included in that concept of "correspondence" (No. 8231/78, Dec. 12.10.83, D.R. 49 p. 5 and Eur. Court H.R., A v. France judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-B).
• EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25205/94

  KREMERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  It is normally for the national courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to hear a witness (cf. No. 8231/78, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 5; No. 10563/83, Dec. 5.7.85, D.R. 44, p. 113; and Eur. Court H.R., Bricmont judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89).
• EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25207/94

  KREMERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  It is normally for the national courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to hear a witness (cf. No. 8231/78, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 5; No. 10563/83, Dec. 5.7.85, D.R. 44, p. 113; and Eur. Court H.R., Bricmont judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89).
• EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 21842/93

  KEMPERS v. AUSTRIA

  Domestic courts may thus exercise some discretion, provided that the Convention and particularly the right to a fair hearing are respected, in deciding whether the hearing of a defence witness is likely to help to establish the truth (No. 8231/78, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28 p. 5).
• EKMR, 27.02.1995 - 23229/94

  H.H. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 25652/94

  A.K.L. v. FINLAND
• EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25208/94

  KREMERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 26596/95

  KREMERS v. the NETHERLANDS
• EKMR, 06.04.1995 - 23931/94

  BAKARE v. BELGIUM
• EKMR, 06.04.1994 - 21645/93

  R.B. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EKMR, 08.01.1992 - 13536/88

  H. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EKMR, 06.12.1991 - 12865/87

  NICOL v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EKMR, 28.06.1995 - 22463/93

  MÜLLER v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25206/94

  HOLS v. THE NETHERLANDS