Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DICKSON c. ROYAUME-UNI
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 12, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'art. 8 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 12 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DICKSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 12, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 8 Not necessary to examine Art. 12 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award (englisch) - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 18.04.2006 - 44362/04
- EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04
- EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 44362/04
Wird zitiert von ... (21) Neu Zitiert selbst (8)
- EKMR, 22.10.1997 - 32094/96
E.L.H. AND P.B.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04
32094/96 and 32568/96, Commission decision of 22 October 1997, DR 91-A, p. 61), Lord Phillips summarised five Convention principles he considered thereby established:.The Court considers that Article 8 is applicable to the applicants" complaints in that the refusal of artificial insemination facilities concerned their private and family lives, which notions incorporate the right to respect for their decision to become genetic parents (see E.L.H. and P.B.H. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 32094/96 and 32568/96, Commission decision of 22 October 1997, DR 91-A, p. 61; Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI; Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, § 187-89, 29 April 2003; and Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 71-72, ECHR 2007-I).
- EKMR, 13.10.1977 - 7114/75
HAMER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04
Having examined relevant Commission jurisprudence (no. 6564/74, Commission decision of 21 May 1975, Decisions and Reports (DR) 2, p. 105; no. 8166/78, Commission decision of 3 October 1978, DR 13, p. 241; Hamer v. the United Kingdom, no. 7114/75, Commission's report of 13 December 1979, DR 24, p. 5; Draper v. the United Kingdom, no. 8186/78, Commission's report of 10 July 1980, DR 24, p. 72; and E.L.H. and P.B.H. v. the United Kingdom, nos.For example, prisoners may not be ill-treated, subjected to inhuman or degrading punishment or conditions contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI; Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II); they continue to enjoy the right to respect for family life (Ploski v. Poland, no. 26761/95, judgment of 12 November 2002; X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9054/80, Commission decision of 8 October 1982, DR 30, p. 113), the right to freedom of expression (Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 126-145, ECHR 2003-XII, T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission report of 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84), the right to practise their religion (Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, §§ 167-171, ECHR 2003-V), the right of effective access to a lawyer or to court for the purposes of Article 6 (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A, no. 80; Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A, no. 18), the right to respect for correspondence (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61) and the right to marry (Hamer v. the United Kingdom, no. 7114/75, Commission report of 13 December 1979, DR 24, p. 5; Draper v. the United Kingdom, no. 8186/78, Commission report of 10 July 1980, DR 24, p. 72).
- EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 50490/99
BOSO contre l'ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04
The Court considers, as did the Chamber, that no separate issue arises under Article 12 of the Convention and that it is not therefore necessary also to examine the applicants" complaint under this provision (see E.L.H. and P.B.H. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, and Boso v. Italy (dec.), no. 50490/99, ECHR 2002-VII).
- EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 42326/98
Schutz des Rechts auf Achtung des Privatlebens und Familienlebens; Möglichkeit …
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04
In particular, in both instances regard must be had to the fair balance to be struck between the competing interests (see Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 40, ECHR 2003-III, and Evans, cited above, § 75). - EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04
The Chamber judgment was consistent with the Court's case-law (see, notably, Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 45, Series A no. 18) and with that of the Commission (referred to by the Court of Appeal - see paragraph 24 above - in the above-mentioned Mellor case). - EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04
For example, prisoners may not be ill-treated, subjected to inhuman or degrading punishment or conditions contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI; Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II); they continue to enjoy the right to respect for family life (Ploski v. Poland, no. 26761/95, judgment of 12 November 2002; X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9054/80, Commission decision of 8 October 1982, DR 30, p. 113), the right to freedom of expression (Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 126-145, ECHR 2003-XII, T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission report of 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84), the right to practise their religion (Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, §§ 167-171, ECHR 2003-V), the right of effective access to a lawyer or to court for the purposes of Article 6 (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A, no. 80; Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A, no. 18), the right to respect for correspondence (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61) and the right to marry (Hamer v. the United Kingdom, no. 7114/75, Commission report of 13 December 1979, DR 24, p. 5; Draper v. the United Kingdom, no. 8186/78, Commission report of 10 July 1980, DR 24, p. 72). - EKMR, 06.03.1982 - 8231/78
X. v. the UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04
For example, prisoners may not be ill-treated, subjected to inhuman or degrading punishment or conditions contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI; Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II); they continue to enjoy the right to respect for family life (Ploski v. Poland, no. 26761/95, judgment of 12 November 2002; X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9054/80, Commission decision of 8 October 1982, DR 30, p. 113), the right to freedom of expression (Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 126-145, ECHR 2003-XII, T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission report of 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84), the right to practise their religion (Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, §§ 167-171, ECHR 2003-V), the right of effective access to a lawyer or to court for the purposes of Article 6 (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A, no. 80; Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A, no. 18), the right to respect for correspondence (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61) and the right to marry (Hamer v. the United Kingdom, no. 7114/75, Commission report of 13 December 1979, DR 24, p. 5; Draper v. the United Kingdom, no. 8186/78, Commission report of 10 July 1980, DR 24, p. 72). - EKMR, 08.10.1982 - 9054/80
A. v. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04
For example, prisoners may not be ill-treated, subjected to inhuman or degrading punishment or conditions contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI; Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II); they continue to enjoy the right to respect for family life (Ploski v. Poland, no. 26761/95, judgment of 12 November 2002; X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9054/80, Commission decision of 8 October 1982, DR 30, p. 113), the right to freedom of expression (Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 126-145, ECHR 2003-XII, T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission report of 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84), the right to practise their religion (Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, §§ 167-171, ECHR 2003-V), the right of effective access to a lawyer or to court for the purposes of Article 6 (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A, no. 80; Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A, no. 18), the right to respect for correspondence (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61) and the right to marry (Hamer v. the United Kingdom, no. 7114/75, Commission report of 13 December 1979, DR 24, p. 5; Draper v. the United Kingdom, no. 8186/78, Commission report of 10 July 1980, DR 24, p. 72).
- BVerfG, 26.02.2008 - 1 BvR 1602/07
Caroline von Monaco III
In Übereinstimmung hiermit ist auch für die bei der Auslegung der deutschen Grundrechte bedeutsamen Vorgaben der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention in der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs ein eigenständiger Beurteilungsspielraum der nationalen Gerichte anerkannt (vgl. EGMR, - Große Kammer -, Urteil vom 4. Dezember 2007, Beschwerde-Nr. 44362/04, Dickson gegen Großbritannien, §§ 77 ff.). - EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07
Babar Ahmad u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
Where there are limitations on the services provided, for example restrictions on group prayer, these are necessary and inevitable consequences of imprisonment (see, mutatis mutandis, Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 68, ECHR 2007-V). - EGMR, 10.03.2011 - 2700/10
KIYUTIN c. RUSSIE
The existence of a European consensus is an additional consideration relevant for determining whether the respondent State should be afforded a narrow or a wide margin of appreciation (see Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 81, ECHR 2007-XIII, and S.L. v. Austria, no. 45330/99, § 31, ECHR 2003-I (extracts)).
- EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 30078/06
KONSTANTIN MARKIN c. RUSSIE
En pareil cas, la Cour respecte généralement le choix politique du législateur, à moins qu'il ait un «fondement manifestement déraisonnable» (voir mutatis mutandis, Dickson c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 44362/04, § 78, CEDH 2007-XIII). - EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 28859/11
DUBSKÁ AND KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
It further covers issues such as the decision whether or not to have a child or to become genetic parents (see Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 71, ECHR 2007-I), and the right of prisoners to procreate while in prison (see Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 66, ECHR 2007-V). - EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 43912/10
JALBA v. ROMANIA
These obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private and family life even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (see Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 40, ECHR 2003-III, and Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 70, ECHR 2007-V). - EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10
YAROSHOVETS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
At the same time, the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with that Convention obligation with due regard to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals (see, for instance, Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 81, ECHR 2007-V). - EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 13621/08
HORYCH v. POLAND
(see, muatis mutandis, Hirst (no. 2) v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 74025/01, ECHR 2005-IX, § 69; and Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, ECHR 2007-..., §§ 67-68). - EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 20928/05
PETRENCO v. MOLDOVA
These obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private and family life even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (see Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 40, ECHR 2003-III; and Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 70, ECHR 2007-XIII). - EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 39058/05
KYRIAKIDES v. CYPRUS
The applicable principles are nonetheless similar (see Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 70, ECHR 2007-...). - EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 23800/06
SHELLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05
TERESHCHENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06
VARNAS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 152/04
YEFIMENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04
BORIS POPOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 39758/05
TROSIN v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 07.05.2009 - 3451/05
KALACHEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 39633/10
COSTEL GACIU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63763/11
ZINCHENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 37862/02
EPNERS-GEFNERS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 52990/08
DAVISON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM