Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OF KRYVYI RIH'S TERNIVSKY DISTRICT v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion;Manifest religion or belief);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OF KRYVYI RIH v. UKRAINE

  Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 21477/10

  [7] See, for example, Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 82, ECHR 2009.
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 21477/10

  The Court reiterates that in this area, the planning policy, the domestic authorities enjoy a wide margin of appreciation (see, for example, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 69, Series A no. 52).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 21477/10

  This is because, given their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is "in the public interest" (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 46, Series A no. 98; see also, for example, National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, § 80, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII, and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. the United Kingdom, no. 7552/09, 4 March 2014).

 
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 77606/01

  PAUDICIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 21477/10

  The Court sees no reason to question that conclusion and finds that the interference was not lawful (compare, for example, Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, §§ 58, 61 and 62, ECHR 1999-II; Antonetto v. Italy, no. 15918/89, §§ 35-38, 20 July 2000; Frascino v. Italy, no. 35227/97, §§ 32-34, 11 December 2003; and Paudicio v. Italy, no. 77606/01, §§ 40-47, 24 May 2007).
• EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

  ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 21477/10

  Under such circumstances the Court concludes that there has been an interference with the applicant company's "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), judgment of 25 October 1989, § 54, Series A no. 163, and Hellborg v. Sweden, no. 47473/99, § 45, 28 February 2006).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 41754/98

  JOHANNISCHE KIRCHE & PETERS contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 21477/10

  The Court has been confronted with a number of situations where restrictions on establishment of places of worship were imposed for planning-related reasons (see, for example, Johannische Kirche and Horst Peters v. Germany (dec.), no. 41754/98, 10 July 2001; Vergos, cited above, §§ 40-43; and Tanyar and Küçükergin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 74242/01, 7 June 2005).
• EGMR, 18.01.2001 - 27238/95

  CHAPMAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 21477/10

  It is a well-established principle of the Court's case-law that domestic authorities enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in the choice and implementation of planning policies (see, for example, Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 92, ECHR 2001-I, and Association for Solidarity with Jehovah's Witnesses and Others, cited above, § 103).

• EGMR - 4311/22 (anhängig)

  ASSOCIAZIONE CULTURALE ASSALAM DI CANTU' v. ITALY

  If so, was that interference in accordance with the requirements of Article 9 § 2 (see Association for Solidarity with Jehovah's Witnesses and Others, cited above, §§ 92-108, Religious Community of Jehovah's Witnesses of Kryvyi Rih's Ternivsky District v. Ukraine, no. 21477/10, §§ 51-59, 3 September 2019, The Religious Denomination of Jehovah's Witnesses in Bulgaria v. Bulgaria, cited above, §§ 98-115)?.