Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2000,20781
EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95 (https://dejure.org/2000,20781)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03.10.2000 - 28369/95 (https://dejure.org/2000,20781)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03. Oktober 2000 - 28369/95 (https://dejure.org/2000,20781)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2000,20781) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CAMP ET BOURIMI c. PAYS-BAS

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 14+8, Art. 14, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation de l'art. 14+8 Non-violation de l'art. 8 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CAMP AND BOURIMI v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 14+8, Art. 14, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 14+8 No violation of Art. 8 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (49)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

    MARCKX v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95
    The Court has previously examined alleged differences in treatment in matters of succession both under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 (see the Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 24, § 54, and the Vermeire v. Belgium judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 214-C, p. 83, § 28) and under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see the Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 18, § 40, and Mazurek v. France, no. 34406/97, § 43, ECHR 2000-II).
  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

    JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95
    The Court reiterates that the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities (see, for example, the Johnston and Others v. Ireland judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, p. 25, § 55).
  • EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88

    KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95
    Moreover, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment (see the Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, pp. 32-33, § 24).
     
  • EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79

    Inze ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95
    The Court has previously examined alleged differences in treatment in matters of succession both under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 (see the Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 24, § 54, and the Vermeire v. Belgium judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 214-C, p. 83, § 28) and under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see the Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 18, § 40, and Mazurek v. France, no. 34406/97, § 43, ECHR 2000-II).
  • EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

    BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95
    8-9, § 16, and the Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 13 June 1994 (Article 50), Series A no. 285-C, p. 57, § 17).
  • EGMR, 01.02.2000 - 34406/97

    MAZUREK c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95
    The Court has previously examined alleged differences in treatment in matters of succession both under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 (see the Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 24, § 54, and the Vermeire v. Belgium judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 214-C, p. 83, § 28) and under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see the Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 18, § 40, and Mazurek v. France, no. 34406/97, § 43, ECHR 2000-II).
  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 6538/74

    SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1) (ARTICLE 50)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95
    Moreover, the Court recalls its case-law under former Article 50 of the Convention to the effect that just satisfaction may be granted by the Court unless a national law remedy is able to bring about a result as close to restitutio in integrum as possible in the nature of things (see, for example, the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp judgment cited above, pp. 9-10, § 20; the Ringeisen v. Austria judgment of 22 June 1972 (Article 50), Series A no. 15, p. 8, § 21; and the Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom judgment of 6 November 1980 (Article 50), Series A no. 38, pp.
  • EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12849/87

    VERMEIRE c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95
    The Court has previously examined alleged differences in treatment in matters of succession both under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 (see the Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 24, § 54, and the Vermeire v. Belgium judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 214-C, p. 83, § 28) and under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see the Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 18, § 40, and Mazurek v. France, no. 34406/97, § 43, ECHR 2000-II).
  • EGMR, 22.06.1972 - 2614/65

    RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA (ARTICLE 50)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95
    Moreover, the Court recalls its case-law under former Article 50 of the Convention to the effect that just satisfaction may be granted by the Court unless a national law remedy is able to bring about a result as close to restitutio in integrum as possible in the nature of things (see, for example, the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp judgment cited above, pp. 9-10, § 20; the Ringeisen v. Austria judgment of 22 June 1972 (Article 50), Series A no. 15, p. 8, § 21; and the Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom judgment of 6 November 1980 (Article 50), Series A no. 38, pp.
  • EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

    Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

    Moreover, the Contracting States enjoy a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations left a different treatment (see Camp and Bourimi v. the Netherlands, no. 28369/95, ECHR 2000-X, § 37).
  • EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 29762/10

    Stichtagsregelung im Erbrecht: Deutschland diskriminiert nichteheliche Kinder …

    Darüber hinaus hängt ein Erbrecht zwischen Kindern und Eltern so eng mit dem Familienleben zusammen, dass es unter Artikel 8 fällt (…siehe Marckx./. Belgien, 13. Juni 1979, Rdnr. 52, Serie A Band 31; und Camp und Bourimi./. die Niederlande, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 28369/95, Rdnr. 35, ECHR 2000-X).
  • BVerfG, 18.03.2013 - 1 BvR 2436/11

    Stichtagsregelung für die erbrechtliche Gleichstellung der vor dem 1. Juli 1949 …

    Unter Verweis auf seine bisherige Rechtsprechung (…Urteil vom 13. Juni 1979 - 6833/74 -, Marckx/Belgien, Series A No. 31, NJW 1979, S. 2449;… Urteil vom 18. Dezember 1986 - 9697/82 -, Johnston/Irland, Series A No. 112, EuGRZ 1987, S. 313;… Urteil vom 28. Oktober 1987 - 8695/79 -, Inze/Österreich, Series A No. 126, ÖJZ 1988, S. 177;… Urteil vom 1. Februar 2000 - 34406/97 -, Mazurek/Frankreich, ECHR Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2000-II, FamRZ 2000, S. 1077; Urteil vom 3. Oktober 2000 - 28369/95 -, Camp u.a./Niederlande, ECHR Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2000-X) sah der Gerichtshof in der Ungleichbehandlung der vor dem 1. Juli 1949 geborenen nichtehelichen Kinder durch Art. 12 § 10 NEhelG eine Verletzung des Art. 14 in Verbindung mit Art. 8EMRK.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht