Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 40010/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,67155
EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 40010/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,67155)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03.12.2009 - 40010/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,67155)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03. Dezember 2009 - 40010/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,67155)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,67155) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 49853/99

    PICHON and SAJOUS v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 40010/04
    On the other hand, the wish to have one's ashes scattered on one's own land (see X. v. Germany, no. 8741/79, Commission decision of 10 March 1981, D.R. 24, p. 137), to put a photograph on a graveyard memorial (see Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42639/04, 13 September 2005) or to give a specific name to a child (see Salonen v. Finland, no. 27868/95, Commission decision of 2 July 1997), the request for an exemption from the general prohibition on divorce (see Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 63, Series A no. 112) or on assisted suicide (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 82, ECHR 2002-III), mandatory participation in a school parade (see Valsamis v. Greece and Efstratiou v. Greece, 18 December 1996, § 37, Reports 1996-VI), or the refusal of pharmacists to sell contraceptive pills (see Pichon and Sajous v. France (dec.), no. 49853/99, 2 October 2001), were not recognised as a direct expression of the applicants' beliefs protected under Article 9 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

    Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 40010/04
    On the other hand, the wish to have one's ashes scattered on one's own land (see X. v. Germany, no. 8741/79, Commission decision of 10 March 1981, D.R. 24, p. 137), to put a photograph on a graveyard memorial (see Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42639/04, 13 September 2005) or to give a specific name to a child (see Salonen v. Finland, no. 27868/95, Commission decision of 2 July 1997), the request for an exemption from the general prohibition on divorce (see Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 63, Series A no. 112) or on assisted suicide (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 82, ECHR 2002-III), mandatory participation in a school parade (see Valsamis v. Greece and Efstratiou v. Greece, 18 December 1996, § 37, Reports 1996-VI), or the refusal of pharmacists to sell contraceptive pills (see Pichon and Sajous v. France (dec.), no. 49853/99, 2 October 2001), were not recognised as a direct expression of the applicants' beliefs protected under Article 9 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 35753/03

    PHULL c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 40010/04
    Such acts have been previously held to include, in particular, the reading of sacred texts (see Kuznetsov and Others, cited above), assembling with others for a service of worship (see Barankevich v. Russia, no. 10519/03, § 20, 26 July 2007), participation in the life of the community (see Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria, no. 39023/97, § 73, 16 December 2004), proselytising (see Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 36, Series A no. 260-A), wearing specific clothes (see Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 78, ECHR 2005-XI, and Phull v. France (dec.), no. 35753/03, 11 January 2005), and respecting dietary restrictions (see Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC], no. 27417/95, § 73, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 42639/04

    JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 40010/04
    On the other hand, the wish to have one's ashes scattered on one's own land (see X. v. Germany, no. 8741/79, Commission decision of 10 March 1981, D.R. 24, p. 137), to put a photograph on a graveyard memorial (see Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42639/04, 13 September 2005) or to give a specific name to a child (see Salonen v. Finland, no. 27868/95, Commission decision of 2 July 1997), the request for an exemption from the general prohibition on divorce (see Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 63, Series A no. 112) or on assisted suicide (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 82, ECHR 2002-III), mandatory participation in a school parade (see Valsamis v. Greece and Efstratiou v. Greece, 18 December 1996, § 37, Reports 1996-VI), or the refusal of pharmacists to sell contraceptive pills (see Pichon and Sajous v. France (dec.), no. 49853/99, 2 October 2001), were not recognised as a direct expression of the applicants' beliefs protected under Article 9 of the Convention.
  • EKMR, 10.03.1981 - 8741/79

    X. c. ALLEMAGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 40010/04
    On the other hand, the wish to have one's ashes scattered on one's own land (see X. v. Germany, no. 8741/79, Commission decision of 10 March 1981, D.R. 24, p. 137), to put a photograph on a graveyard memorial (see Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42639/04, 13 September 2005) or to give a specific name to a child (see Salonen v. Finland, no. 27868/95, Commission decision of 2 July 1997), the request for an exemption from the general prohibition on divorce (see Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 63, Series A no. 112) or on assisted suicide (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 82, ECHR 2002-III), mandatory participation in a school parade (see Valsamis v. Greece and Efstratiou v. Greece, 18 December 1996, § 37, Reports 1996-VI), or the refusal of pharmacists to sell contraceptive pills (see Pichon and Sajous v. France (dec.), no. 49853/99, 2 October 2001), were not recognised as a direct expression of the applicants' beliefs protected under Article 9 of the Convention.
  • EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 27868/95

    SALONEN v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 40010/04
    On the other hand, the wish to have one's ashes scattered on one's own land (see X. v. Germany, no. 8741/79, Commission decision of 10 March 1981, D.R. 24, p. 137), to put a photograph on a graveyard memorial (see Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42639/04, 13 September 2005) or to give a specific name to a child (see Salonen v. Finland, no. 27868/95, Commission decision of 2 July 1997), the request for an exemption from the general prohibition on divorce (see Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 63, Series A no. 112) or on assisted suicide (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 82, ECHR 2002-III), mandatory participation in a school parade (see Valsamis v. Greece and Efstratiou v. Greece, 18 December 1996, § 37, Reports 1996-VI), or the refusal of pharmacists to sell contraceptive pills (see Pichon and Sajous v. France (dec.), no. 49853/99, 2 October 2001), were not recognised as a direct expression of the applicants' beliefs protected under Article 9 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

    JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 40010/04
    On the other hand, the wish to have one's ashes scattered on one's own land (see X. v. Germany, no. 8741/79, Commission decision of 10 March 1981, D.R. 24, p. 137), to put a photograph on a graveyard memorial (see Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42639/04, 13 September 2005) or to give a specific name to a child (see Salonen v. Finland, no. 27868/95, Commission decision of 2 July 1997), the request for an exemption from the general prohibition on divorce (see Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 63, Series A no. 112) or on assisted suicide (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 82, ECHR 2002-III), mandatory participation in a school parade (see Valsamis v. Greece and Efstratiou v. Greece, 18 December 1996, § 37, Reports 1996-VI), or the refusal of pharmacists to sell contraceptive pills (see Pichon and Sajous v. France (dec.), no. 49853/99, 2 October 2001), were not recognised as a direct expression of the applicants' beliefs protected under Article 9 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

    KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 40010/04
    Such acts have been previously held to include, in particular, the reading of sacred texts (see Kuznetsov and Others, cited above), assembling with others for a service of worship (see Barankevich v. Russia, no. 10519/03, § 20, 26 July 2007), participation in the life of the community (see Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria, no. 39023/97, § 73, 16 December 2004), proselytising (see Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 36, Series A no. 260-A), wearing specific clothes (see Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 78, ECHR 2005-XI, and Phull v. France (dec.), no. 35753/03, 11 January 2005), and respecting dietary restrictions (see Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC], no. 27417/95, § 73, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 44774/98

    LEYLA SAHIN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 40010/04
    Such acts have been previously held to include, in particular, the reading of sacred texts (see Kuznetsov and Others, cited above), assembling with others for a service of worship (see Barankevich v. Russia, no. 10519/03, § 20, 26 July 2007), participation in the life of the community (see Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria, no. 39023/97, § 73, 16 December 2004), proselytising (see Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 36, Series A no. 260-A), wearing specific clothes (see Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 78, ECHR 2005-XI, and Phull v. France (dec.), no. 35753/03, 11 January 2005), and respecting dietary restrictions (see Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC], no. 27417/95, § 73, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 27417/95

    CHA'ARE SHALOM VE TSEDEK v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 40010/04
    Such acts have been previously held to include, in particular, the reading of sacred texts (see Kuznetsov and Others, cited above), assembling with others for a service of worship (see Barankevich v. Russia, no. 10519/03, § 20, 26 July 2007), participation in the life of the community (see Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria, no. 39023/97, § 73, 16 December 2004), proselytising (see Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 36, Series A no. 260-A), wearing specific clothes (see Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 78, ECHR 2005-XI, and Phull v. France (dec.), no. 35753/03, 11 January 2005), and respecting dietary restrictions (see Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC], no. 27417/95, § 73, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 48420/10

    Eweida u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich - Religionsfreiheit am Arbeitsplatz

    Ainsi, une action ou une omission n'étant pas l'expression directe d'une conviction ou n'ayant qu'un rapport lointain avec un principe de foi échappe à la protection de l'article 9 § 1 (Skugar et autres c. Russie (déc.), no 40010/04, 3 décembre 2009, et, par exemple, Arrowsmith c. Royaume-Uni, no 7050/75, rapport de la Commission du 12 octobre 1978, Décisions et rapports (DR) 19, p. 5, C. c. Royaume-Uni, no 10358/83, rapport de la Commission du 15 décembre 1983, DR 37, p. 142, et Zaoui c. Suisse (déc.), no 41615/98, 18 janvier 2001).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 30.11.2017 - C-426/16

    Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Nils Wahl beeinträchtigt das Erfordernis, wonach

    34 Die Kommission erwähnt in diesem Zusammenhang die Rechtsprechung des EGMR (vgl. u. a. Urteil des EGMR vom 3. Dezember 2009, Skugar u. a./Russland, CE:ECHR:2009:1203DEC004001004) zur Verwendung einer Steueridentifikationsnummer.
  • EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 34417/10

    ABDULLAH YALÇIN v. TURKEY (No. 2)

    This does not, nevertheless, prevent the Court from making factual findings as to whether an applicant's religious claims are genuine and sincerely held (see Skugar and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 40010/04, 3 December 2009, and Kosteski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 55170/00, § 39, 13 April 2006).
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