Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  THE MOSCOW BRANCH OF THE SALVATION ARMY v. RUSSIA

  Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 9 Abs. 2, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 14+9, Art. 14, Art. 14+11, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 11 read in the light of Art. 9 Not necessary to examine under Art. 14 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BRANCHE DE MOSCOU DE L'ARMEE DU SALUT c. RUSSIE

  Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 9 Abs. 2, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 14+9, Art. 14, Art. 14+11, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 11 lu à la lumière de l'art. 9 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 14 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire (französisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.06.2004 - 72881/01
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 72881/01

Wird zitiert von ... (34)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 72881/01

  According to the Convention organs' constant approach, the word "victim" denotes the person directly affected by the act or omission which is in issue (see Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, § 27, and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, § 41).

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been invoked both on its own and together with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, it is not generally necessary for the Court to consider the case under Article 14 also, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III, and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, § 67).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30985/96

  HASSAN ET TCHAOUCH c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 72881/01

  The State's duty of neutrality and impartiality, as defined in the Court's case-law, is incompatible with any power on the State's part to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs (see Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia, cited above, §§ 118 and 123, and Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 62, ECHR 2000-XI).

  The believers' right to freedom of religion encompasses the expectation that the community will be allowed to function peacefully, free from arbitrary State intervention (see Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 62, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 72881/01

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been invoked both on its own and together with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, it is not generally necessary for the Court to consider the case under Article 14 also, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III, and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, § 67).

 
• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29225/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 72881/01

  In determining whether a necessity within the meaning of paragraph 2 of these Convention provisions exists, the States have only a limited margin of appreciation, which goes hand in hand with rigorous European supervision embracing both the law and the decisions applying it, including those given by independent courts (see Gorzelik, cited above, § 95; Sidiropoulos, cited above, § 40; and Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 13.12.2001 - 45701/99

  METROPOLITAN CHURCH OF BESSARABIA AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 72881/01

  The pluralism indissociable from a democratic society, which has been dearly won over the centuries, depends on it (see Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, § 114, ECHR 2001-XII).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 72881/01

  The Court recalls in this connection that the existence of a violation is conceivable even in the absence of prejudice or damage; the question whether an applicant has actually been placed in an unfavourable position is not a matter for Article 34 of the Convention and the issue of damage becomes relevant only in the context of Article 41 (see, among many authorities, Marckx, loc. cit.; Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, § 66; and Wassink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A no. 185-A, § 38).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 72881/01

  According to the Convention organs' constant approach, the word "victim" denotes the person directly affected by the act or omission which is in issue (see Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, § 27, and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, § 41).

• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 48420/10

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

  Pareil critère n'offrirait une protection que dans des conditions trop strictes et ne serait pas conforme à la manière de raisonner retenue par les juridictions internes dans des affaires comme R. (Watkins-Singh) v. Governing Body of Aberdare Girls" High School [2008] EWHC 1865 (Admin) et Williamson and Others (précité) et par la Cour dans des affaires comme Branche de Moscou de l'Armée du Salut c. Russie, no 72881/01, CEDH 2006-XI, Jakóbski c. Pologne, no 18429/06, 7 décembre 2010, et Bayatyan c. Arménie [GC], no 23459/03, CEDH 2011.
• EuGH, 18.06.2020 - C-78/18

  Die von Ungarn erlassenen Beschränkungen der Finanzierung von Organisationen der …

  Sodann umfasst dieses Recht nicht nur die Befugnis, eine Vereinigung zu gründen oder aufzulösen (EGMR, 17. Februar 2004, Gorzelik u. a. gegen Polen, CE:ECHR:2004:0217JUD004415898, § 52, und EGMR, 8. Oktober 2009, Tebieti Mühafize Cemiyyeti und Israfilov gegen Aserbaidschan, CE:ECHR:2009:1008JUD003708303, § 54), sondern auch die Möglichkeit für diese Vereinigung, im Zeitraum dazwischen tätig zu werden, was unter anderem impliziert, dass sie ihre Tätigkeiten fortsetzen und ohne ungerechtfertigte staatliche Eingriffe arbeiten kann (EGMR, 5. Oktober 2006, Moskauer Zweig der Heilsarmee gegen Russland, CE:ECHR:2006:1005JUD007288101, §§ 73 und 74).

  Schließlich ergibt sich aus der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte, dass Rechtsvorschriften, die die Tätigkeit oder die Arbeitsweise von Vereinigungen erheblich erschweren - sei es, dass die Anforderungen an ihre Eintragung verschärft werden (EGMR, 12. April 2011, Republikanische Partei Russlands gegen Russland, CE:ECHR:2011:0412JUD001297607, §§ 79 bis 81), dass ihre Möglichkeiten, Finanzmittel zu erhalten, beschränkt werden (EGMR, 7. Juni 2007, Parti Nationaliste Basque - Organisation Régionale d'Iparralde gegen Frankreich, CE:ECHR:2007:0607JUD007125101, §§ 37 und 38), dass sie Melde- und Offenlegungspflichten unterworfen werden, die geeignet sind, sie in ein negatives Licht zu setzen (EGMR, 2. August 2001, Grande Oriente d'Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani gegen Italien, CE:ECHR:2001:0802JUD003597297, §§ 13 und 15), oder dass sie der Gefahr von Sanktionen, insbesondere der Auflösung, ausgesetzt sind (EGMR, 5. Oktober 2006, Moskauer Zweig der Heilsarmee gegen Russland, CE:ECHR:2006:1005JUD007288101, § 73) -, zwar möglicherweise gerechtfertigt sein können, aber gleichwohl als Eingriffe in das Recht auf Vereinigungsfreiheit und damit als Einschränkungen dieses in Art. 12 der Charta verankerten Rechts einzustufen sind.

• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 23459/03

  BAYATYAN v. ARMENIA

  En particulier, il doit faire la preuve que l'ingérence répond à un « besoin social impérieux'(Manoussakis et autres, précité, § 44, Serif c. Grèce, no 38178/97, § 49, CEDH 1999-IX, Eglise métropolitaine de Bessarabie et autres, précité, § 119, Agga c. Grèce (no 2), nos 50776/99 et 52912/99, § 56, 17 octobre 2002, et Branche de Moscou de l'Armée du salut c. Russie, no 72881/01, § 62, CEDH 2006-XI).

 
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 40825/98

  RELIGIONSGEMEINSCHAFT DER ZEUGEN JEHOVAS AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA

  Wassink v. the Netherlands , judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A no. 185-A, § 38; see also The Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia , no. 72881/01, § 64-65, ECHR 2006-...;.
• EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 13201/05

  Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Voraussetzungen für belastende Schlüsse aus dem …

  The question whether an applicant has actually been placed in an unfavourable position is not a matter for Article 34 of the Convention and the issue of damage becomes relevant only in the context of Article 41 (see, among many authorities, Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 65, ECHR 2006"XI, and Wassink v. the Netherlands, 27 September 1990, § 38, Series A no. 185"A).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 302/02

  JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OF MOSCOW AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court found in both cases that "the Moscow authorities did not act in good faith and neglected their duty of neutrality and impartiality" (see Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia, no. 18147/02, § 97, 5 April 2007, and Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 97, ECHR 2006-XI).
• EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 70945/11

  Ungarns Kirchengesetz verletzt die Menschenrechte

  The majority then refers, in paragraph 82, to two previous cases of the Court (Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 67, ECHR 2006-XI, and Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia, no. 18147/02, § 78, 5 April 2007) where the "refusal of registration" disclosed interference with a religious organisation's right to freedom of association and also with its right to freedom of religion.
• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 66490/09

  MOCKUTE v. LITHUANIA

  The Court has also held that the State enjoys only a limited margin of appreciation and must advance convincing and compelling reasons to justify any interference with the freedom of individual conscience (see Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 76, ECHR 2006-XI; also see, mutatis mutandis, Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC], no. 23459/03, § 123, ECHR 2011).

  In Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia (no. 72881/01, § 76, ECHR 2006-XI) the statement of the "limited" margin was made only in relation to the rule of freedom of association and in particular in the context of Article 11. That can be deduced from the references to Gorzelik and Others v. Poland ([GC], no. 44158/98, § 95, ECHR 2004-I), Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece (10 July 1998, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV) and Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria (nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-IX) which were all Article 11 cases.

• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 52336/99

  St. Salvator (München)

  Der Gerichtshof stellt im vorliegenden Fall fest, dass im Gegensatz zu anderen von ihm gewürdigten Rechtssachen (siehe Serif ./. Griechenland , Nr. 38178/97, CEDH 1999-IX, o.a. Hassan und Tchaouch , o.a. Metropolitankirche von Bessarabien u.a. , Moskauer Zweig der Heilsarmee ./. Russland , Nr. 72881/01, CEDH 2006-..., und o.a. Sviato-Mykhaïlivska Parafiya ) 1 die strittige Entscheidung der deutschen Behörden und Gerichte weder die interne Organisation der Beschwerdeführerin noch ihre offizielle staatliche Anerkennung als Religionsgemeinschaft betraf.
• EGMR, 22.11.2007 - 64752/01

  VOSKUIL v. THE NETHERLANDS

  As the Court has held many times, the existence of a violation is conceivable even in the absence of prejudice or damage; the question whether an applicant has actually been placed in an unfavourable position is not a matter for Article 34 of the Convention and the issue of damage becomes relevant only in the context of Article 41 (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 13, § 27; as a recent example, The Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 65, ECHR 2006-...).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.02.2023 - C-478/21

  Antidumping-Klage: Generalanwältin Medina schlägt dem Gerichtshof vor, die …
• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 26587/07

  KRUPKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 32401/10

  TAGANROG LRO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 37083/03

  TEBIETI MÜHAFIZE CEMIYYETI AND ISRAFILOV c. AZERBAIDJAN
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 7552/09

  THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 29356/19

  PLESHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.06.2011 - 8916/05

  ASSOCIATION LES TÉMOINS DE JÉHOVAH c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 1413/08

  Verstoß gegen Religions- und Meinungsfreiheit: russisches Verbot von islamischen …
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 36915/10

  ASSOCIATION DE SOLIDARITÉ AVEC LES TEMOINS DE JEHOVAH ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 48044/10

  BEKTASHI COMMUNITY AND OTHERS v.
• EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 3532/07

  ORTHODOX OHRID ARCHDIOCESE v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 72874/01

  UNION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 10519/03

  BARANKEVICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 17599/07

  KIRIL IVANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 20.06.2017 - 32093/10

  CUMHURIYETÇI EGITIM VE KÜLTÜR MERKEZI VAKFI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.06.2017 - 58088/08

  METODIEV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 17864/04

  KRASNOV AND SKURATOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.07.2022 - 32895/13

  BRYANSK-TULA DIOCESE OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX FREE CHURCH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 67685/14

  SOZAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 29496/16

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (No. 3)
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 70502/13

  YORDAN IVANOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 39696/12

  SEMENOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 47191/06

  CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF ST PETERSBURG AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.11.2022 - 74852/14

  ILYIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE