Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EL MORSLI c. FRANCE

  Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 2, Art. 9 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EL MORSLI v. FRANCE

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 15585/06

  The Court reiterates that under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the person concerned must raise before the national authorities, "in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law", the complaints he intends to make subsequently in Strasbourg (see Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 36-37, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 35753/03

  PHULL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 15585/06

  In a similar case (see Phull v. France (dec.), no. 35753/03, ECHR 2005-I), the applicant, a practising Sikh, complained of a violation of his right to freedom of religion by the airport authorities who had compelled him to remove his turban during a security check.
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 44774/98

  LEYLA SAHIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 15585/06

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, the wearing of the headscarf can be considered to be "motivated or inspired by a religion or belief" (see Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, 10 November 2005, ECHR 2005-XI, § 78).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 15585/06

  The Court reiterates that under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the person concerned must raise before the national authorities, "in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law", the complaints he intends to make subsequently in Strasbourg (see Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 36-37, ECHR 1999-I).

• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

  Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens

  Thus, to address the questions of public safety, it would be sufficient to implement identity checks at highrisk locations, as in the situations examined by the Court in the cases of Phull v. France ((dec.), no. 35753/03, ECHR 2005-I) and El Morsli v. France ((dec.), no. 15585/06, 4 March 2008).

  133. It has thus ruled on bans on the wearing of religious symbols in State schools, imposed on teaching staff (see, inter alia, Dahlab, decision cited above, and Kurtulmu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65500/01, ECHR 2006-II) and on pupils and students (see, inter alia, Leyla ahin, cited above; Köse and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 26625/02, ECHR 2006-II; Kervanci v. France, no. 31645/04, 4 December 2008; Aktas v. France (dec.), no. 43563/08, 30 June 2009; and Ranjit Singh v. France (dec.) no. 27561/08, 30 June 2009), on an obligation to remove clothing with a religious connotation in the context of a security check (Phull v. France (dec.), no. 35753/03, ECHR 2005-I, and El Morsli v. France (dec.), no. 15585/06, 4 March 2008), and on an obligation to appear bareheaded on identity photos for use on official documents (Mann Singh v. France (dec.), no. 24479/07, 11 June 2007).

• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 27058/05

  DOGRU c. FRANCE

  El Morsli v. France (dec.), no. 15585/06, 4 March 2008, ECHR 2008-...) and consisting in ordering the removal of a turban or a veil in order to submit to such checks do not constitute disproportionate interferences with the exercise of the right to religious freedom.