Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  P.C. v. IRELAND

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;No violation of Article 14+P1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  P.C. v. IRELAND

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 26922/19

  Such a situation may amount to indirect discrimination, which does not necessarily require a discriminatory intent (see D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 184, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 26922/19

  In order for an issue to arise under Article 14 there must be a difference in the treatment of persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations (see, amongst many authorities, Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, § 64, 24 January 2017).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 26922/19

  The Court's assessment 102. The Court would first clarify that, as established in its settled case-law, Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law only where an individual has an "arguable claim" that one of his or her rights or freedoms set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto has been violated (see among many others Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).

 
• EGMR, 10.07.2020 - 310/15

  MUGEMANGANGO c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 26922/19

  Where Article 13 is concerned, the Court's assessment proceeds in line with the principles set down in its case-law, recently summarised in the case Mugemangango v. Belgium [GC], no. 310/15, 10 July 2020 (further citations omitted):.
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 44460/16

  O'SULLIVAN McCARTHY MUSSEL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 26922/19

  It has also stated that the mere fact that an applicant's claim fails is not in itself sufficient to render the remedy ineffective (see O'Sullivan McCarthy Mussel Development Ltd v. Ireland, no. 44460/16, § 160, 7 June 2018).
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06

  VARNAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 26922/19

  It has accepted this in relation to complaints raised by convicted prisoners (see the Clift case, cited above), remand prisoners (see Laduna v. Slovakia, no. 31827/02, ECHR 2011 and Varnas v. Lithuania, no. 42615/06, 9 July 2013), and convicted prisoners transferred to secure psychiatric facilities for treatment (S.S. and Others, cited above).
• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 40356/10

  S.S. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 26922/19

  He argued that the disqualification could not be objectively justified as a matter of penal and social policy in the same way that the Court had upheld a similar disqualification in S.S. and Others v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 40356/10, 21 April 2015, due to the finding of the Supreme Court that the disqualification was invalid as being repugnant to the Constitution.
• EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 34726/04

  SPRINGETT and OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 26922/19

  While the case in question, Springett and Others v. United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 34726/04, 27 April 2010, concerned a very different factual situation, the Court considers that the reasoning there applies equally in the present case.
• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 37452/02

  STUMMER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 26922/19

  65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X, Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, ECHR 2010, and Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, ECHR 2011) all involved complaints of discrimination in the area of social security.
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 49270/11

  SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 26922/19

  As the Court has recently recalled, the issue of the applicability of a Convention provision is one that goes to its jurisdiction ratione materiae and should be addressed at the admissibility stage unless there is a particular reason to join it to the merits (Savickis and Others v. Latvia [GC], no. 49270/11, § 119, 9 June 2022).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05

  RASMUSSEN v. POLAND
• EKMR, 23.10.1997 - 27004/95

  SZRABJET AND CLARKE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 71200/17

  BRAZAUSKIENE v. LITHUANIA

  For this reason, the domestic courts' analysis of the nature of such an interest cannot be overlooked (see P.C. v. Ireland, no. 26922/19, § 48, 1 September 2022).
• EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 31656/22

  ODU v. IRELAND

  The Court refers to its well-established case-law to the effect that where the person concerned does not satisfy the legal conditions laid down in domestic law for the grant of any particular form of benefit, there is no interference with the rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see P.C. v. Ireland, no. 26922/19, § 46, 1 September 2022).