Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FEDERATION CHRETIENNE DES TEMOINS DE JEHOVAH DE FRANCE v. FRANCE

  Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FEDERATION CHRETIENNE DES TEMOINS DE JEHOVAH DE FRANCE contre la FRANCE

  Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EKMR, 04.12.1995 - 28204/95

  TAUIRA ET 18 AUTRES contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2001 - 53430/99

  It was only in highly exceptional circumstances that an applicant could nevertheless claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention owing to the risk of a future violation (application no. 28204/95, Noël Narvii Tauira and 18 Others v. France, Commission decision of 4 December 1995, Decisions and Reports 83, p. 112).

  In order for an applicant to claim to be a victim in such a situation, he must, however, produce reasonable and convincing evidence of the likelihood that a violation affecting him personally will occur; mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient in this respect (see application no. 28204/95, Noël Narvii Tauira and Others v. France, cited above, p. 131).

• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2001 - 53430/99

  The Court has accordingly accepted the notion of a potential victim in the following cases: where the applicant was not in a position to demonstrate that the legislation he complained of had actually been applied to him because of the secret nature of the measures it authorised (Klass and Others v. Germany, cited above); where a law punishing homosexual acts was likely to be applied to a certain category of the population, to which the applicant belonged (Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45); and, lastly, where the forced removal of aliens had already been decided on but not yet carried out and enforcement of the measure would have exposed the persons concerned to the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the country of destination (Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161) or would have infringed the right to respect for family life (Beldjoudi v. France, 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234).
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2001 - 53430/99

  In principle, it does not suffice for an individual applicant to claim that the mere existence of a law violates his rights under the Convention; it is necessary that the law should have been applied to his detriment (Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, § 33).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2001 - 53430/99

  The Court has accordingly accepted the notion of a potential victim in the following cases: where the applicant was not in a position to demonstrate that the legislation he complained of had actually been applied to him because of the secret nature of the measures it authorised (Klass and Others v. Germany, cited above); where a law punishing homosexual acts was likely to be applied to a certain category of the population, to which the applicant belonged (Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45); and, lastly, where the forced removal of aliens had already been decided on but not yet carried out and enforcement of the measure would have exposed the persons concerned to the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the country of destination (Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161) or would have infringed the right to respect for family life (Beldjoudi v. France, 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 73235/12

  IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Indeed, associations cannot be allowed to claim, under Article 34 of the Convention, to be a victim of the acts or omissions which affected the rights and freedoms of its individual members who themselves are adult persons with full legal capacity to act and can thus lodge complaints with the Court in their own name (see, among others, Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, § 47, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65542/12, §§ 115-116, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Fédération chrétienne des témoins de Jéhovah de France v. France (dec.), no. 53430/99, ECHR 2001-XI; and Association des Amis de Saint-Raphaël et de Fréjus and Others v. France (dec.), no. 45053/98, 29 February 2000).
• EGMR, 02.12.2004 - 4672/02

  FARBTUHS c. LETTONIE

  A cet égard, la Cour a toujours jugé que ne peut se prétendre « victime'd'une violation de la Convention, au sens de son article 34, que celui qui est capable de montrer qu'il est personnellement affecté par la mesure litigieuse (voir, en dernier lieu, Fédération chrétienne des témoins de Jéhovah de France c. France (déc.), no 53430/99, CEDH 2001-XI).
• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 27520/07

  [ENG]

  The exercise of the right of individual petition could not be used to prevent a potential violation of the Convention: in theory, the Convention system did not allow the examination - or, if applicable, finding - of a violation other than a posteriori, once that violation had occurred (see Noël Narvii Tauira and 18 others, cited above; Federation Chrétienne des Témoins de Jehovah v. France (dec.), no. 53430/99, 6 November 2001; and Décision Est Video Communication SA and others v. France (dec.), no. 66286/01, 8 October 2002).

• EGMR, 30.06.2011 - 8916/05
  De même, la liberté de religion n'implique nullement que les Eglises ou leurs fidèles doivent se voir accorder un statut fiscal différent de celui des autres contribuables (Alujer Fernandez et Caballero Garcia c. Espagne (déc.), no 53072/99, 14 juin 2001 ; voir également Fédération chrétienne des Témoins de Jéhovah de France c. France (déc.), no 53430/99, 6 novembre 2001).
• EGMR, 06.11.2003 - 48047/99

  POPOV and OTHERS, VAKARELOVA, MARKOV and BANKOV v. BULGARIA

  The Court reiterates that it is not its task to rule on legislation in abstracto (see Fédération Chrétienne des Témoins de Jéhovah v. France (dec.), no. 53430/99, ECHR 2001-XI).
• EGMR, 23.11.2021 - 37477/11

  CENTRALISED RELIGIOUS ORGANISATION CENTRE OF KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS SOCIETIES IN …

  Being an umbrella organisation of local religious associations of Vaishnavism, it had not been directly and immediately affected by the project (they referred to Fédération chrétienne des témoins de Jéhovah de France v. France (dec.), no. 53430/99, ECHR 2001-XI).
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 64330/01

  ANTUNES ROCHA c. PORTUGAL

  La Cour rappelle que pour qu'un requérant puisse se prétendre victime d'une violation de l'un des droits et libertés reconnus par la Convention, il doit exister un lien suffisamment direct entre le requérant en tant que tel et le préjudice qu'il estime avoir subi du fait de la violation alléguée (Fédération chrétienne des témoins de Jéhovah c. France (déc.), no 53430/99, CEDH 2001-XI).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 23914/15

  GENDERDOC-M AND M.D. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The Court points out that an association cannot be allowed to claim, under Article 34 of the Convention, to be a victim of the acts or omissions which affected the rights and freedoms of its individual members who can lodge complaints with the Court in their own name (see, among others, Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, § 47, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65542/12, §§ 115-116, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Fédération chrétienne des témoins de Jéhovah de France v. France (dec.), no. 53430/99, ECHR 2001-XI; and Association des Amis de Saint-Raphaël et de Fréjus and Others v. France (dec.), no. 45053/98, 29 February 2000, and Identoba, cited above, § 45).
• EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 56862/15

  TONCHEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Il se réfère à cet égard à la décision rendue par la Cour dans l'affaire Fédération chrétienne des témoins de Jéhovah de France c. France (no 53430/99, CEDH 2001-XI).
• EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 52499/11

  VECBASTIKA AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  6422/02 and 9916/02, ECHR 2002-V; Fédération chrétienne des témoins de Jéhovah de France v. France (dec.), no. 53430/99, ECHR 2001-XI; and Tauira and Others v. France, no. 28204/95, Commission decision of 4 December 1995, Decisions and Reports (DR) 83-B, p. 112).
• EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 14157/08

  FOGWELL c. MONACO
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 48301/08

  ASSOCIATION 'ACCEPT' ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 7380/02

  ARABADJIEV ET STAVREV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 30.09.2003 - 53934/00

  SOCIETE ANTHROPOSOPHIQUE EN FRANCE contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 13.11.2025 - 17766/16

  PUBLIC ASSOCIATION INFORMATION CENTER 'GENDERDOC-M' v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 12.09.2024 - 24477/23

  SHRI RAM CHANDRA MISSION FRANCE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 31.01.2013 - 50615/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 31.01.2013 - 50471/07

  Zu Unrecht hohe Steuern auf Kollekten und Opfergaben erhoben
• EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 72551/01

  TELIGA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.01.2023 - 23911/15

  PUBLIC ASSOCIATION 'INFORMATION CENTRE GENDERDOC-M' v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 66286/01

  EST VIDEO COMMUNICATION SA et AUTRES contre la FRANCE