Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOVACEVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 - General prohibition of discrimination (Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 - General ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KOVACEVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (22)

• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 43651/22

  The Constitutional Court distinguished the case before it from Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium (2 March 1987, Series A no. 113), on the following grounds:.

  In that regard, they relied on Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113.

  The Court notes that the Government referred to Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium (2 March 1987, Series A no. 113), in which the Court found no breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 taken either alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.

  They also follow from the Court's rich case-law on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, §§ 51-52, Series A no. 113; Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, §§ 54 and 57, ECHR 2004-X; Zdanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 115, ECHR 2006-IV; Etxeberria and Others v. Spain, nos.

• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 43651/22

  Following the judgments of this Court in Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina ([GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, ECHR 2009), Zornic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 3681/06, 15 July 2014) and Pilav v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 41939/07, 9 June 2016), the Constitutional Court has started declaring complaints about the ethnic composition of the House of Peoples and the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina inadmissible because the matter has already been examined.

  The Court reiterates that whereas Article 14 of the Convention prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of "the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention", Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 introduces a general prohibition of discrimination (see Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 53, ECHR 2009, and Baralija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 30100/18, § 45, 29 October 2019).

  These complaints are different from those raised by the applicants in Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC] (nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, 22 December 2009), Zornic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 3681/06, 15 July 2014), ? laku v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 56666/12, 26 May 2016), Pilav v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 41939/07, 9 June 2016) and Pudaric v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 55799/18, 8 December 2020), where the applicants had been potential candidates and successfully complained about restrictions on their right to stand for election.

• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 3681/06

  ZORNIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 43651/22

  Following the judgments of this Court in Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina ([GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, ECHR 2009), Zornic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 3681/06, 15 July 2014) and Pilav v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 41939/07, 9 June 2016), the Constitutional Court has started declaring complaints about the ethnic composition of the House of Peoples and the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina inadmissible because the matter has already been examined.

  However, in view of the Constitutional Court's approach to complaints about the legal provisions excluding persons who do not declare affiliation with "constituent peoples" from public functions (see paragraphs 16-18 above), the Court agrees with the applicant that the remedies to which the Government referred were bound to fail in respect of this complaint (see Zornic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 3681/06, § 21, 15 July 2014).

  These complaints are different from those raised by the applicants in Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC] (nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, 22 December 2009), Zornic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 3681/06, 15 July 2014), ? laku v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 56666/12, 26 May 2016), Pilav v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 41939/07, 9 June 2016) and Pudaric v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 55799/18, 8 December 2020), where the applicants had been potential candidates and successfully complained about restrictions on their right to stand for election.

 
• EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 41939/07

  PILAV v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 43651/22

  Following the judgments of this Court in Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina ([GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, ECHR 2009), Zornic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 3681/06, 15 July 2014) and Pilav v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 41939/07, 9 June 2016), the Constitutional Court has started declaring complaints about the ethnic composition of the House of Peoples and the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina inadmissible because the matter has already been examined.

  Moreover, social benefits are strictly linked to place of residence and are not the same in different parts of the country (see, mutatis mutandis, Pilav v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41939/07, §§ 34, 43, 45 and 48, 9 June 2016, in which the Court rejected a similar argument, and, for illustrative purposes, Pudaric v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [Committee], no. 55799/18, § 26, 8 December 2020).

  These complaints are different from those raised by the applicants in Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC] (nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, 22 December 2009), Zornic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 3681/06, 15 July 2014), ? laku v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 56666/12, 26 May 2016), Pilav v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 41939/07, 9 June 2016) and Pudaric v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 55799/18, 8 December 2020), where the applicants had been potential candidates and successfully complained about restrictions on their right to stand for election.

• EGMR, 16.05.2006 - 13628/03

  MIRAZOVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 43651/22

  Indeed, in the case of legal systems which provide constitutional protection for fundamental rights, such as that of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the aggrieved individual to test the extent of such protection (see Mirazovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 13628/03, 16 May 2006, and the authorities cited therein).

  In a legal system which provides for constitutional protection of human rights, it is in principle incumbent on the individual to test the extent of that protection and allow the domestic courts to develop those rights by way of interpretation (see Independent News and Media plc and Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Limited v. Ireland (dec.), no. 55120/00, 19 June 2003; Mirazovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 13628/03, 16 May 2006; A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 142, ECHR 2010; Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia [GC], nos.

• EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 55799/18

  PUDARIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 43651/22

  Moreover, social benefits are strictly linked to place of residence and are not the same in different parts of the country (see, mutatis mutandis, Pilav v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41939/07, §§ 34, 43, 45 and 48, 9 June 2016, in which the Court rejected a similar argument, and, for illustrative purposes, Pudaric v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [Committee], no. 55799/18, § 26, 8 December 2020).

  These complaints are different from those raised by the applicants in Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC] (nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, 22 December 2009), Zornic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 3681/06, 15 July 2014), ? laku v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 56666/12, 26 May 2016), Pilav v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 41939/07, 9 June 2016) and Pudaric v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 55799/18, 8 December 2020), where the applicants had been potential candidates and successfully complained about restrictions on their right to stand for election.

• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08

  Khamtokhu und Aksenchik ./. Russland: Lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe nur für Männer …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 43651/22

  The words "other status" in the text of Article 14 have generally been given a wide meaning (see Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, § 61, 24 January 2017, and Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 70, ECHR 2010), and their interpretation has not been limited to characteristics which are personal in the sense that they are innate or inherent (see Clift v. the United Kingdom, no. 7205/07, §§ 56-59, 13 July 2010).
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  DENISOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 43651/22

  At the outset, the Court reiterates that as the question of applicability is an issue of its jurisdiction ratione materiae, the general rule for dealing with applications should be respected and the relevant analysis should be carried out at the admissibility stage unless there is a particular reason to join this question to the merits (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 93, 25 September 2018).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 43651/22

  Indeed, in certain circumstances a failure to attempt to correct inequality through different treatment may, without an objective and reasonable justification, give rise to a breach of that Article (see Case "relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium" (merits), 23 July 1968, § 10, Series A no. 6; Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV; D.H. and Others, cited above, § 175; and Sejdic and Finci, cited above, § 44).
• EGMR, 28.03.2024 - 21782/21

  ZHUKOVETS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 43651/22

  In one of its most recent decisions, the Constitutional Court examined on the merits a complaint of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 on account of legal and constitutional provisions in electoral matters (see Kom?.ic and D?¾aferovic, U-27/22, 23 March 2023), thereby accepting its jurisdiction to review even constitutional provisions against the standard of Protocol No. 12 and the relevant Strasbourg case-law.
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 55120/00

  INDEPENDENT NEWS AND MEDIA AND INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS IRELAND LIMITED v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 26.10.2021 - 34591/19

  TOPLAK AND MRAK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 8701/21

  PINKAS AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 26.05.2016 - 56666/12

  SLAKU v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 17.12.2004 - 8/04
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 49636/14

  BAKIRDZI AND E.C. v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 25/02

  BALÇIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• KAG Aachen, 19.06.2006 - 11/06
• EGMR - 36952/21 (anhängig)

  YATSKIV v. RUSSIA and 44 other applications
• AG Bremen, 24.04.2015 - C 58/15
• KAG Mainz, 16.01.2014 - M 18/13

  Eingruppierung; Zustimmungsersetzung
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 32/07

  STANDEKER v. SLOVENIA