• - Rasmussen v. Denmark, Judgment of 28 November 1984, p. 40 , “ … The scope of the margin of appreciation will vary according to the subject-matter and; in this respect, one of the relevant factors may be the existence or non-existence of common ground between the laws of the Contracting States… “ ↑

 

• -European Consensus. ↑

 

• - Andrew Legg, op.cit , p.103. ↑

 

• - P.G. Carozza, “Uses and Misuses of Comparative Law in International Human Rights: Some Reflections on the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights”, Notre Dame Law Review, 73, 1997-98, p.1220. ↑

 

• - Handyside. ↑

 

• - Handyside v United Kingdom , op.cit, para. 48. ↑

 

• - Muller and ors v Switzerland, Judgment of 24 May 1988, para. 35. ↑

 

• - Frette v France ,Judgment of 26 February 2002 , para 36.:”… The total lack of consensus as to the advisability of allowing a single homosexual … States should be afforded a wide margin of appreciation…” ↑

 

• • - در این قضیه متقاضی شکایتی را به دیوان اروپایی مطرح نمود مبنی بر اینکه که درخواست او برای مجوز گرفتن به دلیل همجنس بازی رد گردیده است و این به معنای تبعیض بر مبنای گرایش های جنسیتی است که بر خلاف ماده ۱۴ کنوانسیون می‌باشد. دولت فرانسه بیان داشت که دلیل رد شدن، تبعیض جنسیتی نمی‌باشد بلکه ضرر بالقوه ای است که به منافع کودک به هنگامیکه توسط یک همجنس گرا بزرگ شود به او می رسد چرا که او از یک نقش دوگانه مادری و پدری محروم می‌گردد. ↑

 

• -Ibid at para. 41. ↑

 

• - Dickson v. The United Kingdom,judgment of 04.12.2007, para 77.:”… The breadth of this margin varies and depends on a number of factors, including the nature of the activities restricted and the aims pursued by the restrictions…” ↑

 

• - Brannigan ↑

 

• -Brannigan and McBride v United Kingdom , op.cit.,para 43:”… The Court recalls that it falls to each Contracting State, with its responsibility for “the life of [its] nation", to determine whether that life is threatened by a “public emergency” …..this matter a wide margin of appreciation should be left to the national authorities…” ↑

 

• - Ireland v UK , op.cit.,para. 207:”… In this matter Article 15 para. 1 (art. 15-1) leaves those authorities a wide margin of appreciation…” ↑

 

• - Leander v. Sweden, Judgment of 26 March 1987, para. 59:” … the Court accepts that the margin of appreciation … … protecting national security, was a wide one….” ↑

 

• - Observer v UK, judgment of 26 November, 1991, Partly Dissenting Opinion of judge Morneilla , para. 3 ↑

 

• -Müller ↑

 

• -Müller v. Switzerland, judgment of 24.05.1988, para.32. ↑

 

• - Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others v. Bulgaria, Judgement of 16 September 2010 , para. 2. ↑

 

• - very weighty reasons. ↑

 

• - C. A. Groenendijk, Elspeth Guild, Paul Eduard Minderhoud, In Search of Europe’s Borders,

 

Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2003,p. 38. ↑

 

• -Burden of Proof. ↑

 

• -Juliane Kokott, The Burden of Proof in Comparative and International Human Rights Law: Civil and Common Law Approaches With Special Reference to the American and German Legal Systems,Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998 , p.229. ↑

 

• - Convincing ↑

 

• - Compelling ↑

 

• - United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, Application No. 19392/92, para. 46. ↑

 

• -Manoussakis and others v.Greece judgment of 26 September 1996, Reports of Judmentsand Decisions 1996, para. 44. ↑

 

• - Kiyutin v. Russia, judgment of 10 March 2011, para. 63:”… the State’s margin of appreciation is substantially narrower and it must have very weighty reasons for the restrictions in question…” ↑

 

• - manifestly without reasonable foundation- manifestly unreasonable- unreasonableness ↑

 

• - Ali Riza Çoban, Protection of Property Rights Within the European Convention on Human Rights, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2004,p.212. ↑

 

• -Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom, 12 April 2006, paras. 52 and 66 ↑

 

• -A. and Others v. the United Kingdom, 19 February 2009, paras. 173 - 174. ↑

 

• - R.St.J, Macdonald., op.cit, p.85. ↑

 

• - Steven ,Greer, The Margin of Appreciation: Interpretation and Discretion under the European Convention on Human Rights, op.cit, p. 33. ↑

 

• - A.McHarg, “Reconciling Human Rights and Public Interest” ,The Modern Law Review ۶۲, No. 5 ,Sep , 1999, p. 695. ↑

 

• -MuratTümay, op.cit , p. 234 ↑

 

• - Steven Greer. “ Balancing’ and the European Court of Human Rights: A Contribution to the Habermas-Alexy Debate”, Cambridge Law Journal, Vol ۶۳, Issue ۰۲,۲۰۰۴  , p. 419. ↑

 

• - Steven Greer, The Margin of Appreciation: Interpretation and Discretion under the European Convention on Human Rights,op.cit , p. 33. ↑

 

• -Wingrove v. The United Kindom, op.cit., para. 64 ↑

 

• -Otto-Preminger-Institut v Austria ,judgment of 20.09.1994, para55:”… the margin of appreciation left to the national authorities, ….the interests of society as a whole. …” ↑

 

• -A. v. Norway, Application No. 28070/06, judgment of 9 April 2009, para. 74. ↑

 

• - ماده پنجم کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر:«… ۳- هر کس که طبق مقررات بند (ج) این ماده دستگیر و یا بازداشت می‌شود… حق خواهد داشت که ظرف مدت معقولی محاکمه گردد…» ↑

 

• - ماده ششم کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر:«… ۳- هر کس که به جرم کیفری متهم می‌شود حداقل حقوق ذیل را داراست… ب) داشتن زمان و تسهیلات کافی برای دفاع…» ↑

 

• -reasonable time. ↑