Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 62649/10 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (5)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
IZZETTIN DOGAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Violation of Article 14+9-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion;Article 9 - Freedom of thought ...
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
IZZETTIN DOGAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
Violation de l'article 9 - Liberté de pensée de conscience et de religion (Article 9-1 - Liberté de religion);Violation de l'article 14+9-1 - Interdiction de la discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 9 - Liberté de pensée de conscience et de ...
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
IZZETTIN DOGAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Violation of Article 14+9-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion;Article 9 - Freedom of thought, ...
- doev.de
Izzettin Dogan u.a. - Diskriminierung von Aleviten in der Türkei
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)
- archive.is (Pressebericht, 26.04.2016)
Aleviten in der Türkei diskriminiert
- sueddeutsche.de (Pressemeldung, 26.04.2016)
Türkei verurteilt - Aleviten diskriminiert
Besprechungen u.ä. (2)
- verfassungsblog.de (Entscheidungsbesprechung)
Pluralismus-Lehrstunde für die Türkei
- voelkerrechtsblog.org (Entscheidungsbesprechung)
Türkei diskriminiert 20 Millionen Aleviten
In Nachschlagewerken
- Wikipedia (Wikipedia-Eintrag mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)
Aleviten
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
DOGAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
Dogan and Others v. Turkey
[03.06.2015]
Wird zitiert von ... (44) Neu Zitiert selbst (26)
- EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 11581/85
DARBY v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 62649/10
However, in order to satisfy the requirements of Article 9, each system must include specific safeguards for the individual's freedom of religion (see, mutatis mutandis, Darby v. Sweden, 23 October 1990, § 45, Series A no. 187).So far the Court has accepted in its caselaw that a religion may have a privileged position within a State for historical and cultural reasons (see, for example, Darby v. Sweden, 23 October 1990, § 45, Series A no. 187; Ásatrúarfélagið v. Iceland, no. 22897/08 (dec.), 18 September 2012; and Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, § 132, 3 May 2007).
- EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 40825/98
RELIGIONSGEMEINSCHAFT DER ZEUGEN JEHOVAS AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 62649/10
In that regard the right of a religious community to an autonomous existence is at the very heart of the guarantees in Article 9 of the Convention (see Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria, no. 40825/98, § 79, 31 July 2008).Similarly, the case of Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria (no. 40825/98, §§ 79-80, 31 July 2008) concerned the prolonged failure to grant legal personality to the applicant religious society under domestic law.
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 27417/95
CHA'ARE SHALOM VE TSEDEK v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 62649/10
87. Referring to the judgment in Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France ([GC], no. 27417/95, § 84, ECHR 2000-VII), the Government further maintained that the national authorities must be allowed a wide margin of appreciation in establishing the delicate relationship between religions and the State.Last but not least, this is an area where there is no European consensus (see the comparativelaw information provided in paragraphs 60 to 64 of the judgment) and where the States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation (see, for example, Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC], no. 27417/95, § 84, ECHR 2000-VII, and S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 129, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
- EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11
Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 62649/10
However, provided this condition is satisfied, the State's duty of neutrality and impartiality is incompatible with any power on the State's part to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs or the ways in which those beliefs are expressed (see S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 55, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos.Last but not least, this is an area where there is no European consensus (see the comparativelaw information provided in paragraphs 60 to 64 of the judgment) and where the States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation (see, for example, Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC], no. 27417/95, § 84, ECHR 2000-VII, and S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 129, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
- EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 1448/04
HASAN ET EYLEM ZENGIN c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 62649/10
The Court observes in particular that in its judgment in Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey (no. 1448/04, § 66, 9 October 2007), it held as follows: "As to the Alevi faith, it is not disputed between the parties that it is a religious conviction which has deep roots in Turkish society and history and that it has features which are particular to it ... It is thus distinct from the Sunni understanding of Islam which is taught in schools.In its judgment the Administrative Court, referring to the Court's caselaw (Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, no. 1448/04, 9 October 2007), stated that "Alevism is a serious and coherent set of beliefs [and] is an interpretation of Islam" and that "it is generally accepted that the Alevi faith enjoys the protection afforded by Article 9" (see paragraph 14 of the judgment).
- EGMR, 13.12.2001 - 45701/99
METROPOLITAN CHURCH OF BESSARABIA AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 62649/10
The applicants 71. Referring to the case of Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova (no. 45701/99, ECHR 2001-XII) and emphasising the State's duty of neutrality and impartiality towards religions, the applicants submitted that the assessment of their Alevi faith made by the domestic authorities in order to justify the refusal of their claims had infringed their right to freedom of religion.8. Thus, the case of Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova (no. 45701/99, § 105, ECHR 2001-XII) concerned a situation where the applicant church, without official recognition as a religion under domestic law, could not operate as a church, in particular because its priests were not entitled to conduct divine service and its members could not meet to practise their religion and because, since it lacked legal personality, it was not entitled to judicial protection of its assets.
- EGMR, 06.02.1976 - 5589/72
SCHMIDT ET DAHLSTRÖM c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 62649/10
Article 14 comes into play whenever "the subjectmatter of the disadvantage ... constitutes one of the modalities of the exercise of a right guaranteed" (see National Union of Belgian Police v. Belgium, 27 October 1975, § 45, Series A no. 19), or the measure complained of is "linked to the exercise of a right guaranteed" (see Schmidt and Dahlström v. Sweden, 6 February 1976, § 39, Series A no. 21). - EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 76836/01
KIMLYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 62649/10
In its judgment in Kimlya and Others v. Russia (nos. 76836/01 and 32782/03, § 85, ECHR 2009), it observed that a religious group without legal personality was deprived of the associated rights. - EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79
BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 62649/10
This is because, given their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is "in the public interest" (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 46, Series A no. 98; see also, for example, National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, § 80, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII, and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. the United Kingdom, no. 7552/09, 4 March 2014). - EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 43546/02
E.B. v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08
MAKTOUF ET DAMJANOVIC c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE
- EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 70945/11
Ungarns Kirchengesetz verletzt die Menschenrechte
- EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
- EGMR, 31.01.2013 - 50615/07
ASSOCIATION DES CHEVALIERS DU LOTUS D'OR c. FRANCE
- EKMR, 16.05.1977 - 7050/75
ARROWSMITH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80
ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 38178/97
SERIF c. GRECE
- EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 44774/98
LEYLA SAHIN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 13.08.1981 - 7601/76
YOUNG, JAMES ET WEBSTER c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 24645/94
BUSCARINI ET AUTRES c. SAINT-MARIN
- EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88
KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 44158/98
GORZELIK AND OTHERS v. POLAND
- EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00
D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 8916/05
ASSOCIATION LES TÉMOINS DE JÉHOVAH CONTRE LA FRANCE
- EGMR, 25.02.1982 - 7511/76
CAMPBELL ET COSANS c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02
Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 09.11.2017 - C-414/16
Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Tanchev unterliegen berufliche Anforderungen, die …
114 EGMR, 26. April 2016, 1zzettin Dogan u. a./Türkei, CE:ECHR:2016:0426JUD006264910, § 93 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung.116 EGMR, 26. April 2016, 1zzettin Dogan u. a./Türkei, CE:ECHR:2016:0426JUD006264910, §§ 110 und 121 sowie die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung.
121 EGMR, 26. April 2016, 1zzettin Dogan u. a./Türkei, CE:ECHR:2016:0426JUD006264910, § 110.
126 EGMR, 26. April 2016, 1zzettin Dogan u. a./Türkei, CE:ECHR:2016:0426JUD006264910, § 107 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung.
- EGMR, 06.04.2017 - 10138/11
Negative Religionsfreiheit: Konfessionslose dürfen an Kirchensteuer beteiligt …
Um zu entscheiden, ob ein Eingriff eine Verletzung von Artikel 9 der Konvention darstellt, muss der Gerichtshof prüfen, ob er den Erfordernissen von Artikel 9 Abs. 2 genügte, ob er also "gesetzlich vorgesehen" war, ein nach dieser Bestimmung rechtmäßiges Ziel verfolgte und "in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft notwendig" war (Izzettin Dogan u. a../. Türkei [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 62649/10, Rdnr. 105, ECHR 2016). - EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57792/15
Kopfbedeckung im Gericht rechtmäßig
(b) Whether the measure was "prescribed by law" 32. The Court reiterates that the expression "prescribed by law" in the second paragraph of Article 9 not only requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see zzettin Doan and Others v. Turkey [GC], no. 62649/10, § 99, ECHR 2016).
- EGMR, 19.12.2018 - 20452/14
MOLLA SALI v. GREECE
It applies also to those additional rights, falling within the general scope of any Convention Article, for which the State has voluntarily decided to provide (see, among many other authorities, E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, §§ 47-48, 22 January 2008; Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 63, ECHR 2010; Izzettin Dogan and Others v. Turkey [GC], no. 62649/10, § 158, 26 April 2016; Biao v. Denmark [GC], no. 38590/10, § 88, 24 May 2016, and Fábián v. Hungary [GC], no. 78117/13, § 112, 5 September 2017). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 28.05.2020 - C-238/19
Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge () und asile) - Vorlage zur …
59 Urteil vom 26. April 2016, 1zzettin Dogan u. a./Türkei (CE:ECHR:2016:0426JUD006264910, [Große Kammer], § 109). - EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 64220/19
Föderation der Aleviten-Gemeinden in Österreich ./. Österreich
This was contrary to the Court's case-law in Izzettin Dogan and Others v. Turkey ([GC], no. 62649/10, 26 April 2016). - EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 34015/17
SARDAR BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
That freedom entails, inter alia, freedom to hold or not to hold religious beliefs and to practise or not to practise a religion (see, among other authorities, Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 31, Series A no. 260-A; Buscarini and Others v. San Marino [GC], no. 24645/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-I; S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 124, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Izzettin Dogan and Others v. Turkey [GC], no. 62649/10, § 103, 26 April 2016). - EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13
FÁBIÁN c. HONGRIE
It applies also to those additional rights, falling within the general scope of any Convention Article, for which the State has voluntarily decided to provide (see, among many other authorities, Biao v. Denmark [GC], no. 38590/10, § 88, ECHR 2016; Izzettin Dogan and Others v. Turkey [GC], no. 62649/10, § 158, ECHR 2016; Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 63, ECHR 2010; and E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, §§ 47-48, 22 January 2008). - EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 40792/10
FEDOTOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
En outre, la Cour a tenu à rappeler à maintes reprises que, bien qu'il faille parfois subordonner les intérêts d'individus aÌ€ ceux d'un groupe, la démocratie ne se ramène pas à la suprématie constante de l'opinion d'une majorité mais commande un équilibre qui assure aux individus minoritaires un traitement juste et qui évite tout abus d'une position dominante (voir, mutatis mutandis, Young, James et Webster, précité, § 63, Chassagnou et autres, précité, § 112, Gorzelik et autres c. Pologne [GC], no 44158/98, § 90, CEDH 2004 I, et Izzettin Dogan et autres c. Turquie [GC], no 62649/10, § 109, 26 avril 2016). - EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 78630/12
BEELER v. SWITZERLAND
Si les États sont libres de décider de la manière dont ils souhaitent favoriser la vie familiale, ils ne peuvent exclure des individus pour des motifs discriminatoires dès lors qu'ils accordent une aide financière aux familles (comparer avec Fábián c. Hongrie [GC], no 78117/13, § 112, 5 septembre 2017, Biao c. Danemark [GC], no 38590/10, § 88, 24 mai 2016, 1zzettin Dogan et autres c. Turquie [GC], no 62649/10, § 158, 26 avril 2016, Carson et autres, précité, § 63, E.B. c. France [GC], no 43546/02, § 48, 22 janvier 2008, X et autres c. Autriche [GC], no 19010/07, § 135, CEDH 2013, Genovese c. Malte, no 53124/09, § 32, 11 octobre 2011, et Beeckman et autres c. Belgique (déc.), no 34952/07, § 19, 18 septembre 2018). - EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 32401/10
TAGANROG LRO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 43082/14
HAMZAYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 54032/18
T.C. v. ITALY
- EGMR, 10.12.2021 - 15379/16
ABDI IBRAHIM v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 19.09.2023 - 64144/14
COSTA SANTOS c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14
SHMORGUNOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 14604/08
MUSHFIG MAMMADOV ET AUTRES c. AZERBAÏDJAN
- EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 47933/09
ASMA c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 66490/09
MOCKUTE v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 31172/19
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 75604/11
ADYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 9025/15
DIETHNIS AKADIMIA AGIOS KOSMAS O AITOLOS v. GREECE
- EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 36785/03
TEL c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 06.04.2017 - 2000/09
ZÁKOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 51914/19
TELIATNIKOV v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 50272/18
SHORTALL AND OTHERS v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 3532/07
ORTHODOX OHRID ARCHDIOCESE v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
- EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 12482/14
LUTSENKO AND VERBYTSKYY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 37272/08
DASTAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 34417/10
ABDULLAH YALÇIN v. TURKEY (No. 2)
- EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 58717/10
NASIROV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 15.06.2017 - 58088/08
METODIEV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 23.03.2017 - 40524/08
GENOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 36915/10
ASSOCIATION DE SOLIDARITÉ AVEC LES TEMOINS DE JEHOVAH ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 56862/15
TONCHEV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 20165/20
ASSEMBLÉE CHRÉTIENNE DES TÉMOINS DE JÉHOVAH D'ANDERLECHT ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 41817/10
CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN THE NKR v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 42730/11
SHEVELI AND SHENGELAYA v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 50124/07
ÇÖLGEÇEN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57101/10
RIBAC v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 09.11.2023 - 22604/18
ASOCIACIÓN DE ABOGADOS CRISTIANOS v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 07.10.2021 - 24941/13
RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY OF UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH KYIV PATRIARCHATE IN MOSTYSKA v. …
- EGMR - 4311/22 (anhängig)
ASSOCIAZIONE CULTURALE ASSALAM DI CANTU' v. ITALY
- EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 61827/19
SAGER AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA