Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 42949/98, 53134/99 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
RUNKEE AND WHITE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 14+8, Art. 14, Art. 8, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
No violation of Art. 14+P1-1 in connection with non-entitlement to a Widow's Pension Violation of Art. 14+P1-1 concerning non-entitlement to a Widow's Payment Not necessary to examine Art. 14+8 Pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award ... - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 42949/98
- EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 42949/98, 53134/99
Wird zitiert von ... (83) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01
STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 5596/03
ROMANCHENKO v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 42949/98
The interest rate applied, which is intended to compensate for loss of value of the award over time, should therefore reflect national economic conditions, such as levels of inflation and rates of interest available to investors nationally during the relevant period (see, for example, Akkus v. Turkey, judgment of 9 July 1997, Reports 1997-IV, § 35; Romanchenko v. Ukraine, no. 5596/03, 22 November 2005, § 30, unpublished; Prodan v. Moldova, no. 49806/99, § 73, ECHR 2004-III (extracts)).
- EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 48420/10
Eweida u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich - Religionsfreiheit am Arbeitsplatz
Toutefois, ce n'est pas la seule facette de l'interdiction de toute discrimination énoncée par l'article 14. Le droit de jouir des droits garantis par la Convention sans être soumis à discrimination est également transgressé lorsque, sans justification objective et raisonnable, les États n'appliquent pas un traitement différent à des personnes dont les situations sont sensiblement différentes (Thlimmenos, précité, § 44, D.H. et autres c. République tchèque [GC], no 57325/00, § 175, CEDH 2007-IV, et Runkee et White c. Royaume-Uni, nos 42949/98 et 53134/99, § 35, 10 mai 2007). - EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 29381/09
Homosexualität in Griechenland
La situation inverse, où une loi ou un règlement apporte l'égalité en nivelant par le bas la jouissance d'un droit garanti par la Convention par un groupe de personnes qui, du fait d'une caractéristique identifiable, est avantagé par rapport à un autre groupe de personnes moins favorisé, relève également d'un examen in abstracto de la Cour (Runkee et White c. Royaume-Uni, nos 42949/98 et 53134/99, §§ 40-43, 10 mai 2007). - EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08
Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung
42949/98 and 53134/99, 10 May 2007; and Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, ECHR 2010).
- EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06
Konstantin Markin ./. Russland
Positive discrimination measures had to be proportionately tailored to the aim of correcting, compensating for, or mitigating the continuing effects of a hardship suffered by a historically disadvantaged group, such as women (see Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, nos. 42949/98 and 53134/99, §§ 37 and 40-43, 10 May 2007, and Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, §§ 61 and 66, ECHR 2006-VI). - EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 5335/05
PONOMARYOVI v. BULGARIA
Ainsi, une ample latitude est d'ordinaire laissée à l'Etat pour prendre des mesures d'ordre général en matière économique ou sociale (Stec et autres c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 65731/01, § 52, CEDH 2006-VI, Runkee et White c. Royaume-Uni, nos 42949/98 et 53134/99, § 36, 10 mai 2007, Burden c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 13378/05, § 60 in fine, CEDH 2008-(...), Andrejeva, précité, § 83, Carson et autres c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 42184/05, § 61, CEDH 2010-(...), Clift c. Royaume-Uni, no 7205/07, § 73, 13 juillet 2010, et J.M. c. Royaume-Uni, no 37060/06, § 54, 28 septembre 2010). - EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 42184/05
CARSON ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Any welfare system, to be workable, may have to use broad categorisations to distinguish between different groups in need (see Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, nos. 42949/98 and 53134/99, § 39, 10 May 2007). - EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 61391/00
O'BRIEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
42949/98 and 53134/99, 25 July 2007.The applicant submitted that the Court should not differ from its holding in White v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no.53134/99) in which it rejected the Government's plea regarding benefit claims not made in the proper format.
- EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 36534/04
PETERSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
42949/98 and 53134/99, 25 July 2007.The Court considers, as it held in Cornwell v. the United Kingdom (no. 36578/97, (dec.), 11 May 1999), that unless or until a man has made a claim to the domestic authorities for bereavement benefits, he cannot be regarded as a "victim" of the alleged discrimination involved in the refusal to pay such benefits, because a woman in the same position would not automatically be entitled to widows" benefits until she had made a claim (see also White v. the United Kingdom, no. 53134/99 (dec.), 7 June 2001, where the Court clarified that, as long as an applicant had made clear to the authorities his intention to claim benefits, the precise form in which he did so was not important).
- EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 17233/03
FASCIONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
42949/98 and 53134/99, 25 July 2007.In respect of WBA, the Court considers, as it held in Cornwell v. the United Kingdom (no. 36578/97, (dec.), 11 May 1999) that unless or until a man has made a claim to the domestic authorities for bereavement benefits, he cannot be regarded as a "victim" of the alleged discrimination involved in the refusal to pay such benefits, because a woman in the same position would not automatically be entitled to widows" benefits until she had made a claim (see also White v. the United Kingdom, no. 53134/99 (dec.), 7 June 2001, where the Court clarified that, as long as an applicant had made clear to the authorities his intention to claim benefits, the precise form in which he did so was not important).
- EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 65507/01
GINNIFER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
42949/98 and 53134/99, 25 July 2007.The applicant submitted that the Court should not differ from its holding in White v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no.53134/99) in which it rejected the Government's plea regarding benefit claims not made in the proper format.
- EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 49270/11
SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 24.10.2019 - 32949/17
J.D. AND A v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06
AMATO GAUCI v. MALTA
- EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 7552/09
THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 61878/00
RHODES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 50570/13
CASSAR v. MALTA
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 61395/00
BILBY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 46712/15
BERKMAN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 61395/00
WAKELING v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 02.09.2009 - 61395/00
HUGHES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 02.09.2008 - 61395/00
DONNELLY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 31122/05
GHIGO v. MALTA
- EGMR, 05.07.2018 - 41299/09
BOYADZHIEVA AND GLORIA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED EOOD v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 9957/08
KOROSIDOU c. GRECE
- EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 17647/04
EDWARDS v. MALTA
- EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 60525/00
GORDON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.05.2022 - 19839/21
L.F. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 02.09.2008 - 55050/00
RALPH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 27948/02
AMBROSE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 25379/02
TWIZELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 6717/08
RUSZKOWSKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 63701/00
THOMAS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 63647/00
JACKSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 63480/00
HUBLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 63477/00
WELLS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28008/02
HODKINSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28007/02
BHAVSAR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 27953/02
BECK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28112/02
WRIGHT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28108/02
WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28106/02
WILLIAMSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28098/02
VACHER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28079/02
SMITH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28065/02
ROBINSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28055/02
PARK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28052/02
OLIVER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28050/02
NUTT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28022/02
KEEYS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28021/02
KAVANAGH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28015/02
INGRAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 42712/02
HODGKINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 42693/02
GODFREY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28061/02
RAMSBOTTOM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 27998/02
GOODIER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 27991/02
EMERY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 27989/02
DUNWOODIE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 27984/02
DEARDEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 27978/02
COOPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 27962/02
BOUND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28069/02
SAWYER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28028/02
LOGAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28019/02
JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 27983/02
CULLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28018/02
JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 27981/02
CRON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 27951/02
BEARD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 65477/01
WALSH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 27956/02
BEVAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28085/02
SYKES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 27985/02
DERBYSHIRE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 27960/02
BOLDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 28025/02
KORITSAS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 28029/02
LUDLAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 28047/02
NIXON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 28056/02
PARSONS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 28058/02
PEAKE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 28109/02
WITHEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 28014/02
HUTTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 27947/02
ADAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28017/02
JOHNSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 27970/02
CHAPMAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 28033/02
MASON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 28103/02
WEBB v. THE UNITED KINGDOM