Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HAMIDOVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HAMIDOVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

• doev.de

  Hamidovic/Bosnien u. Herzegowina - Tragen religiöser Kopfbedeckung im Gerichtssaal

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (3)

• tagesschau.de (Pressebericht, 05.12.2017)

  Kopfbedeckung im Gericht rechtmäßig

• lto.de (Kurzinformation)

  Kopfbedeckung vor Gericht: Tragen religiöser Bekleidung darf nicht bestraft werden

• anwalt.de (Kurzinformation)

  Die religiöse Kopfbedeckung im Gerichtsaal

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HAMIDOVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57792/15
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 57792/15

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ 2018, 965

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (23)

• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 44774/98

  LEYLA SAHIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57792/15

  The Court has already held that secularism is a belief protected by Article 9 of the Convention (see Lautsi and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 30814/06, § 58, ECHR 2011) and that an aim to uphold secular and democratic values can be linked to the legitimate aim of the "protection of the rights and freedoms of others" within the meaning of Article 9 § 2 (see Leyla ahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 99, ECHR 2005-XI, and Ahmet Arslan and Others v. Turkey, no. 41135/98, § 43, 23 February 2010).

  4. In previous landmark cases decided by this Court in which the respondent State's wide margin of appreciation was accepted and no violation was found (see for example S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, ECHR 2014 (extracts), or Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, ECHR 2005-XI), there existed a general rule at the national level prohibiting certain religious symbols in public places.

  ... As regards Article 9 of the Convention, the State should thus, in principle, be afforded a wide margin of appreciation in deciding whether and to what extent a limitation of the right to manifest one's religion or beliefs is "necessary'." 8. Similarly, in Leyla ahin v. Turkey ([GC], no. 44774/98, § 109, ECHR 2005-XI; see also Osmanolu and Kocaba v. Switzerland, no. 29086/12, § 88, ECHR 2017) the Court, with reference to the margin of appreciation, noted: "It is not possible to discern throughout Europe a uniform conception of the significance of religion in society ..., and the meaning or impact of the public expression of a religious belief will differ according to time and context ... Rules in this sphere will consequently vary from one country to another according to national traditions and the requirements imposed by the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others and to maintain public order ... Accordingly, the choice of the extent and form such regulations should take must inevitably be left up to a point to the State concerned, as it will depend on the specific domestic context." 9. As far as the notion of secularism is concerned, the Court in Leyla ahin (cited above, § 114) considered it to be "consistent with the values underpinning the Convention.

• EGMR, 15.02.2001 - 42393/98

  Verbot des Tragens eines islamischen Kopftuches während des Unterrichtens an …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57792/15

  It should be noted at the outset that the present case is not about the wearing of religious symbols and clothing at the workplace (in this regard, see Dahlab v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 42393/98, ECHR 2001-V; Kurtulmu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65500/01, ECHR 2006-II; Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos.

  Referring to the judgment in Otto-Preminger- Institut v. Austria (20 September 1994, § 50, Series A no. 295-A) and the decision in Dahlab v. Switzerland ((dec.), no. 42393/98, ECHR 2001-V), it added that it was thus not possible to discern throughout Europe a uniform conception of the significance of religion in society and that the meaning or impact of the public expression of a religious belief would differ according to time and context.

  40. As mentioned above (see paragraph 26 above), the present case must be distinguished from cases concerning the wearing of religious symbols and clothing at the workplace, notably by public officials who may be put under a duty of discretion, neutrality and impartiality, including a duty not to wear such symbols and clothing while exercising official authority (see Pitkevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47936/99, 8 February 2001, concerning the dismissal of a judge because she had, among other things, proselytised and prayed during court hearings; Dahlab v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 42393/98, ECHR 2001-V, concerning the prohibition for a primaryschool teacher to wear a headscarf while teaching; Kurtulmu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65500/01, ECHR 2006-II, concerning the prohibition for a university professor to wear a headscarf while teaching; Eweida and Others, cited above, § 105, concerning the dismissal of a registrar of births, deaths and marriages as a result of her refusal to conduct samesex partnerships; and Ebrahimian v. France, no. 64846/11, ECHR 2015, concerning the prohibition for a social worker in the psychiatric department of a public hospital to wear a headscarf at work).

• EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 64846/11

  Kopftuch tragen zählt nicht zu den Menschenrechten

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57792/15

  48420/10 and 3 others, ECHR 2013; and Ebrahimian v. France, no. 64846/11, ECHR 2015).

  40. As mentioned above (see paragraph 26 above), the present case must be distinguished from cases concerning the wearing of religious symbols and clothing at the workplace, notably by public officials who may be put under a duty of discretion, neutrality and impartiality, including a duty not to wear such symbols and clothing while exercising official authority (see Pitkevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47936/99, 8 February 2001, concerning the dismissal of a judge because she had, among other things, proselytised and prayed during court hearings; Dahlab v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 42393/98, ECHR 2001-V, concerning the prohibition for a primaryschool teacher to wear a headscarf while teaching; Kurtulmu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65500/01, ECHR 2006-II, concerning the prohibition for a university professor to wear a headscarf while teaching; Eweida and Others, cited above, § 105, concerning the dismissal of a registrar of births, deaths and marriages as a result of her refusal to conduct samesex partnerships; and Ebrahimian v. France, no. 64846/11, ECHR 2015, concerning the prohibition for a social worker in the psychiatric department of a public hospital to wear a headscarf at work).

  For example, whether "the applicant's act was inspired by his sincere religious belief that he must wear a skullcap at all times", which by the way was not contested, belongs to the assessment of the applicability of Article 9 and the admissibility of the complaint or to the question of "interference" (see Ebrahimian v. France, no. 64846/11, § 47, ECHR 2015), but cannot be used again as an argument when examining the issue of necessity.

 
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

  Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57792/15

  (c) Whether there was a legitimate aim 34. The Court has already held that the enumeration of the exceptions to the individual's freedom to manifest his or her religion or beliefs, as listed in Article 9 § 2, is exhaustive and that their definition is restrictive (see S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 113, ECHR 2014, and the authorities cited therein).

  4. In previous landmark cases decided by this Court in which the respondent State's wide margin of appreciation was accepted and no violation was found (see for example S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, ECHR 2014 (extracts), or Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, ECHR 2005-XI), there existed a general rule at the national level prohibiting certain religious symbols in public places.

• EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 65500/01

  KURTULMUS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57792/15

  It should be noted at the outset that the present case is not about the wearing of religious symbols and clothing at the workplace (in this regard, see Dahlab v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 42393/98, ECHR 2001-V; Kurtulmu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65500/01, ECHR 2006-II; Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos.

  40. As mentioned above (see paragraph 26 above), the present case must be distinguished from cases concerning the wearing of religious symbols and clothing at the workplace, notably by public officials who may be put under a duty of discretion, neutrality and impartiality, including a duty not to wear such symbols and clothing while exercising official authority (see Pitkevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47936/99, 8 February 2001, concerning the dismissal of a judge because she had, among other things, proselytised and prayed during court hearings; Dahlab v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 42393/98, ECHR 2001-V, concerning the prohibition for a primaryschool teacher to wear a headscarf while teaching; Kurtulmu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65500/01, ECHR 2006-II, concerning the prohibition for a university professor to wear a headscarf while teaching; Eweida and Others, cited above, § 105, concerning the dismissal of a registrar of births, deaths and marriages as a result of her refusal to conduct samesex partnerships; and Ebrahimian v. France, no. 64846/11, ECHR 2015, concerning the prohibition for a social worker in the psychiatric department of a public hospital to wear a headscarf at work).

• EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87

  OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57792/15

  Referring to the judgment in Otto-Preminger- Institut v. Austria (20 September 1994, § 50, Series A no. 295-A) and the decision in Dahlab v. Switzerland ((dec.), no. 42393/98, ECHR 2001-V), it added that it was thus not possible to discern throughout Europe a uniform conception of the significance of religion in society and that the meaning or impact of the public expression of a religious belief would differ according to time and context.
• EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 44179/98

  MURPHY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57792/15

  The only exception to this is where there are shown to be strong reasons for doing so." 14. In this respect, the Court's task is to determine whether the reasons relied on by the national authorities to justify the measures interfering with the applicant's rights are "relevant and sufficient" for the purposes of the Convention right at stake (see, mutatis mutandis, Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, § 68, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 40454/07

  Paris Match bekommt im Fall um Berichterstattung über Fürst Albert von Monaco …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57792/15

  would require strong reasons to substitute its own view for that of the domestic courts (see Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés [GC], no. 40454/07, §§ 90-92, ECHR 2015, and Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57792/15

  40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 104-07, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 38178/97

  SERIF c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57792/15

  but to ensure that the competing groups tolerate each other (see Serif v. Greece, no. 38178/97, § 53, ECHR 1999-IX; see also Leyla ahin, cited above, § 107).
• EGMR, 13.12.2001 - 45701/99

  METROPOLITAN CHURCH OF BESSARABIA AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 08.02.2001 - 47936/99

  PITKEVICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 35991/04

  KEARNS c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 24645/94

  BUSCARINI ET AUTRES c. SAINT-MARIN
• EGMR, 13.08.1981 - 7601/76

  YOUNG, JAMES ET WEBSTER c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 26012/11

  ENVER AYDEMIR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 41215/14

  NDIDI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 16.05.1977 - 7050/75

  ARROWSMITH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 62649/10

  Türkei verurteilt - Aleviten diskriminiert