Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ASSOCIATION ACCEPT AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ASSOCIATION ACCEPT AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ-RR 2023, 81

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 25163/08

  NOVESKI AND OTHERS v.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 19237/16

  25163/08 and 2 others, § 61, 13 September 2016, and Söderman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, § 85, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 19237/16

  In the light of the above considerations - and bearing in mind the nature and substance of the violations found in the present case, on the basis of Article 14, taken in conjunction with Articles 8 and 11 (see paragraphs 127-128 and 146 above, respectively) -, the Court finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 8, 11 and 14, as detailed above (see, mutatis mutandis, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 123, ECHR 2005-VII with respect to the interplay between Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention; see also Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 205, ECHR 2009, with respect to the interplay of Articles 2, 3 and 14 and Article 13).
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 19237/16

  For the same reasons, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately whether there has also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis and among many other authorities, M.C. and A.C. v. Romania cited above, § 129, and Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 51, ECHR 2009).

 
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 19237/16

  Be that as it may, the Court reiterates that its role is not to examine in abstract the applicable national law, but rather to ascertain whether its interpretation by the domestic authorities is compatible with the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Padovani v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 24, Series A no. 257-B, and Beizaras and Levickas, cited above, § 116).
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 19237/16

  In the light of the above considerations - and bearing in mind the nature and substance of the violations found in the present case, on the basis of Article 14, taken in conjunction with Articles 8 and 11 (see paragraphs 127-128 and 146 above, respectively) -, the Court finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 8, 11 and 14, as detailed above (see, mutatis mutandis, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 123, ECHR 2005-VII with respect to the interplay between Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention; see also Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 205, ECHR 2009, with respect to the interplay of Articles 2, 3 and 14 and Article 13).
• EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 10722/13

  A.K. v. LIECHTENSTEIN (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 19237/16

  The Court's assessment General principles 154. The Court reiterates that Article 13 requires the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see, inter alia, Kud?‚a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI; Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, § 157, ECHR 2006-IX; and A.K. v. Liechtenstein (no. 2), no. 10722/13, § 84, 18 February 2016).
• EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 38478/05

  SANDRA JANKOVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 19237/16

  Examples include the sexual abuse of a mentally handicapped individual (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 27, Series A no. 91); allegations of a physical attack against the applicant by three individuals, during which she was kicked and thrown down the stairs (see Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 47, 5 March 2009); the beating of a thirteen-year old by a grown-up man, causing multiple physical injuries (see Remetin v. Croatia, no. 29525/10, § 91, 11 December 2012); and the beating of an individual causing a number of injuries to her head, requiring hospitalisation (see Isakovic Vidovic v. Serbia, no. 41694/07, § 61, 1 July 2014).
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 9134/06

  EFE v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 19237/16

  For example, a discrimination issue arose in cases where the applicants" status, which served as the alleged basis for discriminatory treatment, was determined in relation to their family situation, such as their children's place of residence (see Efe v. Austria, no. 9134/06, § 48, 8 January 2013).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 19237/16

  60367/08 and 961/11, § 64, 24 January 2017, and Fábián[ v. Hungary [GC], no. 78117/13], § 113[,5 September 2017]).
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 25536/14

  SKORJANEC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 19237/16

  It thus follows, in the light of its objective and nature of the rights which it seeks to safeguard, that Article 14 of the Convention also covers instances in which an individual is treated less favourably on the basis of another person's status or protected characteristics (see Guberina v. Croatia, no. 23682/13, § 78, ECHR 2016 and ? korjanec v. Croatia, no. 25536/14, § 55, 28 March 2017 and also Weller v. Hungary, no. 44399/05, § 37, 31 March 2009).
• EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 65542/12

  STICHTING MOTHERS OF SREBRENICA AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

• EGMR, 11.04.2024 - 81249/17

  ALLOUCHE c. FRANCE

  Maîtresse de qualification juridique, la Cour considère que ce grief relève de l'article 8 combiné avec l'article 14 de la Convention qui s'appliquent ratione materiae dans la présente affaire (voir R.B. c. Hongrie, no 64602/12, §§ 78-80, 12 avril 2016, Alkovic c. Monténégro, no 66895/10, § 46, 5 décembre 2017, Beizaras et Levickas c. Lituanie, no 41288/15, § 117, 14 janvier 2020, et Association ACCEPT et autres c. Roumanie, no 19237/16, §§ 62-68, 1er juin 2021, ainsi que, mutatis mutandis, dans le contexte de l'article 3, Skorjanec c. Croatie, no 25536/14, §§ 37-38, 28 mars 2017 (extraits), et Balázs c. Hongrie, no 15529/12, § 54, 20 octobre 2015).
• EGMR, 23.01.2023 - 61435/19

  Verstoß gegen Meinungsfreiheit: Geschichten über gleichgeschlechtliche …

  9. Moreover, in a number of cases the Court has accepted that associations which sought to promote the rights of sexual minorities could be victims of discrimination in their own right (see Genderdoc-M v. Moldova, no. 9106/06, § 54, 12 June 2012; Identoba and Others v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, § 48, 12 May 2015; Association ACCEPT and Others v. Romania, no. 19237/16, § 146, 1 June 2021; and Women's Initiatives Supporting Group and Others v. Georgia, nos.
• EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 24225/19

  GEORGIAN MUSLIM RELATIONS AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  As to the scope and content of the positive obligations in the concrete circumstances of the present case, the Court considers, in view of the general principles outlined above (see ibid.), that what was expected from the relevant authorities was to take swift and adequate measures to stop unlawful mob action, hate speech and other discriminatory actions on the part of the local population (see Karaahmed, cited above, §§ 100-07, and Association ACCEPT and Others v. Romania, no. 19237/16, §§ 105-13, 1 June 2021).

 
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 47358/20

  C. v. ROMANIA

  The Court has already found that, when properly conducted, a criminal investigation constitutes an effective domestic remedy for complaints concerning an alleged infringement of private life punishable by domestic law (see, mutatis mutandis, Association ACCEPT and Others v. Romania, no. 19237/16, § 81, 1 June 2021).
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 58358/14

  ROMANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Yet it does not appear that the police took steps to neutralise the threats in advance or to de-escalate the tension between the applicants and counter-demonstrators; instead, they allowed it to degenerate into physical violence (see, mutatis mutandis, Association ACCEPT and Others v. Romania, no. 19237/16, § 110, 1 June 2021).
• EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 71367/12

  OGANEZOVA v. ARMENIA

  Indeed, as opposed to similar cases where the Court has emphasised the necessity of conducting a meaningful inquiry into the possibility that discriminatory motives lay behind the abuse (see, for example, Identoba and Others, cited above, § 77, with further references; Association ACCEPT and Others v. Romania, no. 19237/16, § 123, 1 June 2021; and Women's Initiatives Supporting Group and Others, cited above, § 63), in the present case the hate motive was overt from the very outset, even before the police launched an investigation.
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 62250/19

  JIVAN v. ROMANIA

  Admissibility Applicability 29. The Court must first decide whether Article 8 is applicable to the facts of the present case (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 93, 25 September 2018, and Association ACCEPT and Others v. Romania, no. 19237/16, § 62, 1 June 2021).
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 35582/15

  I.V.T. v. ROMANIA

  Article 1349 of the Civil Code, on liability in tort, is quoted in Association ACCEPT and Others v. Romania (no. 19237/16, § 40, 1 June 2021).
• EGMR - 226/18 (anhängig)

  YEVSTIFEYEV v. RUSSIA and 16 other applications

  32678/18 and 17172/20, was there a violation of Article 11 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, as a result of the authorities' failure to protect the applicants' right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to investigate the actions of private individuals that had led to the interruption of the event organised by the applicant association (see Association ACCEPT and Others v. Romania, no. 19237/16, §§ 138-47, 1 June 2021)?.
• EGMR - 9195/23 (anhängig)

  SVIRPLYS AND LATVYS v. LITHUANIA

  Did the alleged verbal assault against the applicants attain the level of seriousness required in order to fall within the ambit of Article 8 of the Convention, thereby making Article 14 of the Convention applicable (see, mutatis mutandis, Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania, no. 41288/15, §§ 109 and 117, 14 January 2020, and Association ACCEPT and Others v. Romania, no. 19237/16, §§ 62-68, 1 June 2021)?.