Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HOFFMANN v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 14+8, Art. 14, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 14+8 Not necessary to examine Art. 8 Not necessary to examine Art. 9 Not necessary to examine P1-2 Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HOFFMANN c. AUTRICHE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 14+8, Art. 14, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 14+8 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 8 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 9 Non-lieu à examiner P1-2 Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 10.07.1990 - 12875/87
• EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12875/87

Papierfundstellen

• FamRZ 1994, 1275 (Ls.)

Wird zitiert von ... (37)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 11581/85

  DARBY v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12875/87

  Such a difference in treatment is discriminatory in the absence of an "objective and reasonable justification", that is, if it is not justified by a "legitimate aim" and if there is no "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (see, amongst other authorities, the Darby v. Sweden judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187, p. 12, para. 31).

• EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 22028/04

  Mehr Sorgerecht für ledige Väter

  Der Gerichtshof weist erneut darauf hin, dass Artikel 14 im Hinblick auf den Genuss der nach der Konvention garantierten Rechte und Freiheiten Schutz vor Ungleichbehandlung von Menschen in vergleichbaren Situationen bietet, wenn dafür keine sachlichen und vernünftigen Gründe gibt (siehe u.a. Urteil Hoffmann ./. Österreich vom 23. Juni 1993, Rdnr. 31, Serie A Nr. 255-C).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13092/87

  THE HOLY MONASTERIES v. GREECE

  VI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLES 6, 9 AND 11 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 (art. 14+6, art. 14+9, art. 14+11, art. 14+P1-1) 91. The applicant monasteries relied lastly on Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention, which provides: "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status." Before the Commission they claimed to be the victims of discrimination in that only the monasteries belonging to the Greek Church were affected by the provisions of Law no. 1700/1987.92. According to the Court's case-law, Article 14 (art. 14) does not prohibit all differences in treatment in the exercise of the rights and freedoms (see, as the most recent authority, the Hoffmann v. Austria judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A no. 255-C, p. 58, para. 31).
• EGMR, 01.02.2000 - 34406/97

  MAZUREK c. FRANCE

  The Court reiterates on this point that in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention, Article 14 affords protection against different treatment, without an objective and reasonable justification, of persons in similar situations (see the Hoffmann v. Austria judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A no. 255-C, p. 58, § 31).

 
• EGMR, 21.12.1999 - 33290/96

  SALGUEIRO DA SILVA MOUTA c. PORTUGAL

  The Court notes at the outset that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in question, in so far as it set aside the judgment of the Lisbon Family Affairs Court of 14 July 1994 which had awarded parental responsibility to the applicant, constitutes an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his family life and thus attracts the application of Article 8. The Convention institutions have held that this provision applies to decisions awarding custody to one or other parent after divorce or separation (see the Hoffmann v. Austria judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A no. 255-C, p. 58, § 29; see also Irlen v. Germany, application no. 12246/86, Commission decision of 13 July 1987, Decisions and Reports 53, p. 225).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 18.05.1999 - C-179/98

  Mesbah

  54: - Vgl. Urteile Keegan vom 26. Mai 1990, § 45, Serie A, Bd. 290; Moustaquin vom 18. Februar 1991, § 36, Serie A, Bd. 193; Hokkanen vom 23. September 1994, § 54, Serie A, Bd. 299; Hoffmann vom 23. Juni 1993, § 29, Serie A, Bd. 255; Bouchelkia vom 29. Januar 1997, § 41, Reports 1997, 47; siehe auch Wildhaber/Breitenmoser, in: Internationaler Kommentar zur Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention, Stand: 3. Lieferung, 1995, Art. 8, Rz. 389 ff.; Harris/O'Boyle/Warbrick, Law of the European Convention of Human Rights , London 1995, S.315.
• OLG Köln, 25.03.1999 - 21 WF 45/99
  Eine Entscheidung, die ungeachtet möglicher Gegenargumente im Wesentlichen allein auf einer unterschiedlichen Religionszugehörigkeit als solcher beruht, kann schon vom Grundsatz her nicht akzeptiert werden (EuGH -LS- FamRZ 1994, 1275).
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 29617/07

  VOJNITY v. HUNGARY

  The Court further reiterates that in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention, Article 14 affords protection against different treatment, without an objective and reasonable justification, of persons in similar situations (see Hoffmann v. Austria, 23 June 1993, § 31, Series A no. 255-C).
• EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 77818/12

  PENCHEVI v. BULGARIA

  According to the Court's well established case-law, domestic measures hindering such mutual enjoyment of each other's company amount to an interference with the right to respect for family life (see, inter alia, W. v. the United Kingdom judgment, p. 27, § 59; McMichael v. the United Kingdom, 24 February 1995, § 86, Series A no. 307-B; Hoffmann v. Austria, judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A no. 255-C, p. 58, § 29; Palau-Martinez v. France, no. 4927/01, § 30, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 29032/04

  M. AND C. v. ROMANIA

  In such circumstances, the Court cannot but conclude that there existed a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the legitimate aim pursued (see, by contrast, Hoffmann v. Austria, 23 June 1993, § 36, Series A no. 255-C, and Palau-Martinez, cited above, §§ 42-43).
• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 35159/09

  P.V. c. ESPAGNE

  La Cour rappelle que dans la jouissance des droits et libertés reconnus par la Convention, l'article 14 interdit de traiter de manière différente, sauf justification objective et raisonnable, des personnes placées dans des situations comparables (voir arrêts Hoffmann c. Autriche, 23 juin 1993, § 31, série A no 255-C, et Salgueiro da Silva Mouta c. Portugal, no 33290/96, § 26, CEDH 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13786/04

  LYUBENOVA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08

  DIAMANTE AND PELLICCIONI v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 25330/07

  JOKSAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 66895/10

  ALKOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 01.08.2013 - 47721/10

  ANTONYUK c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 56163/12

  VUJICA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 13553/09

  GRUZDEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35109/02

  SCHMIDT c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 76836/01

  KIMLYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EKMR, 03.07.1997 - 28626/95

  KHRISTIANSKO SDRUZHENIE
• EGMR, 27.07.2010 - 20739/05

  GINEITIENE v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 37614/02

  ISMAILOVA v. RUSSIA
• EKMR, 29.11.1995 - 23576/94

  E.S. c. ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 57724/11

  BABAYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 40950/08

  HÍR v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 05.04.2012 - 3684/07

  STROMBLAD v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 2067/02

  FLAVIUS c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 22.12.2005 - 13886/02

  ATANASOVIC AND OTHERS v.
• AG Wittlich, 04.07.2005 - 8 F 551/04

  Elterliche Sorge: Erziehungseignung einer Kindesmutter, die den Zeugen Jehovas …
• EGMR, 20.03.2001 - 35705/97

  M.L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 41382/98

  DEMPSEY v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 16.05.2006 - 31956/02

  DESCHOMETS v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 63026/00

  FEDERATION NATIONALE DES FAMILLES DE FRANCE v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 03.11.2005 - 61162/00

  F.L. c. FRANCE
• EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 32700/96

  PURTONEN c. FINLANDE
• EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 26376/95

  LAYLLE v. GERMANY
• EKMR, 22.05.1995 - 24630/94

  HEUDENS v. BELGIUM