Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 50272/18 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SHORTALL AND OTHERS v. IRELAND
Inadmissible (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
SHORTALL AND OTHERS v. IRELAND
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (14)
- EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06
SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 50272/18
27996/06 and 34836/06, ECHR 2009, on the basis that the applicants in that case, due to their ethnic affiliation, were precluded from even running for the relevant office under the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.27996/06 and 34836/06, §§ 28-29, ECHR 2009, in which the applicants complained about their ineligibility to stand for election on account of their Roma and Jewish origin, the Court was satisfied that they could claim to be victims of the alleged violations due to their "active participation in public life".
- EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83
NORRIS c. IRLANDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 50272/18
In support of their arguments relating to the excessively remote and hypothetical nature of the applicants" complaints the Government referred to Burden v. the United Kingdom (cited above); Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 29 October 1992, §§ 43-44, Series A no. 246-A; Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1982, Series A no. 48, and Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, § 32-33, Series A no. 142.For example, it has accepted that an applicant enjoys victim status under Article 34 of the Convention where he was not able to establish that the legislation he complained of had actually been applied to him, on account of the secret nature of the measures it authorised (see Klass and Others, cited above, pp. 17-18, § 33), where a law prohibiting homosexual acts was capable of being applied to a certain category of the population, which included the applicant (see Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, §§ 31-33, Series A no. 142), or where an alien's deportation had been ordered but not yet enforced and where enforcement of the order would have exposed him, in the receiving country, to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161) or would infringe his right to respect for his family life (see Beldjoudi v. France, 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234-A).
- EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 62649/10
Türkei verurteilt - Aleviten diskriminiert
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 50272/18
In addition, States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in questions concerning the relationship between States and religion (see, for example, Izzettin Dogan and Others v. Turkey [GC], no. 62649/10, § 112, 26 April 2016).
- EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11
Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 50272/18
Their situation must therefore be distinguished from those of the applicants in, for examples, S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 57, ECHR 2014 (extracts), or Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, § 92, ECHR 2012, who faced the dilemma either of complying with the impugned legal provision, or refusing to do so, on account, respectively, of their religious belief or sense of professional ethics, and in so doing exposed themselves to sanction. - EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88
Jens Söring
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 50272/18
For example, it has accepted that an applicant enjoys victim status under Article 34 of the Convention where he was not able to establish that the legislation he complained of had actually been applied to him, on account of the secret nature of the measures it authorised (see Klass and Others, cited above, pp. 17-18, § 33), where a law prohibiting homosexual acts was capable of being applied to a certain category of the population, which included the applicant (see Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, §§ 31-33, Series A no. 142), or where an alien's deportation had been ordered but not yet enforced and where enforcement of the order would have exposed him, in the receiving country, to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161) or would infringe his right to respect for his family life (see Beldjoudi v. France, 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234-A). - EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71
Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 50272/18
The Government argued that other cases where the Court had departed from its general approach to deny individuals the right to challenge a law in abstracto, in particular cases where the applicant was unable to establish whether a domestic law had been applied to him or her (Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28 and Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, ECHR 2015), were not relevant or applicable to the applicants" circumstances. - EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06
EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 50272/18
The Government argued that other cases where the Court had departed from its general approach to deny individuals the right to challenge a law in abstracto, in particular cases where the applicant was unable to establish whether a domestic law had been applied to him or her (Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28 and Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, ECHR 2015), were not relevant or applicable to the applicants" circumstances. - EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 12323/11
MICHAUD v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 50272/18
Their situation must therefore be distinguished from those of the applicants in, for examples, S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 57, ECHR 2014 (extracts), or Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, § 92, ECHR 2012, who faced the dilemma either of complying with the impugned legal provision, or refusing to do so, on account, respectively, of their religious belief or sense of professional ethics, and in so doing exposed themselves to sanction. - EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08
CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 50272/18
However, it is open to a person to contend that a law violates his rights, in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if he is required either to modify his conduct or risks being prosecuted or if he is a member of a class of people who risk being directly affected by the legislation (see, among other authorities, Albert and Others v. Hungary [GC], no. 5294/14, § 120-121, 7 July 2020, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 96 and 101, ECHR 2014, Tanase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 104, ECHR 2010 and Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, §§ 33-34, ECHR 2008). - EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82
JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 50272/18
They argued that the category of persons affected by a violation and possessing victim status under Article 35 may be very broad, referring to Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland (cited above), that there were numerous examples of "potential victims" in the Court's case-law, referring to Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112 and Norris v. Ireland (cited above), that the assessment of victim status depended on the facts of an individual case and the Convention right at issue, and that the cases cited by the Government were thus of limited relevance. - EGMR, 25.02.1982 - 7511/76
CAMPBELL ET COSANS c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88
OPEN DOOR AND DUBLIN WELL WOMAN v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 24645/94
BUSCARINI ET AUTRES c. SAINT-MARIN
- EGMR, 26.03.1992 - 12083/86
BELDJOUDI v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 27.11.2023 - 21881/20
COMMUNAUTÉ GENEVOISE D'ACTION SYNDICALE (CGAS) v. SWITZERLAND
Cependant, pour pouvoir soutenir qu'une loi méconnaît ses droits et libertés garantis par la Convention, un requérant doit démontrer qu'il a subi ou qu'il risque de subir « directement'les effets de la législation en cause, sans quoi sa requête relève de l'actio popularis (Dimitras et autres c. Grèce ((déc.), no 59573/09, §§ 30-31, 4 juillet 2017 ; et Shortall c. Irlande ((déc.), no 50272/18, § 53, 19 octobre 2021).