Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HIRST c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 2)

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 3, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de P1-3 Aucune question distincte au regard de l'art. 14 Aucune question distincte au regard de l'art. 10 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Frais et dépens (procédure nationale) - demande rejetée Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 2)

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 3, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of P1-3 No separate issue under Art. 14 No separate issue under Art. 10 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Besprechungen u.ä.

• verfassungsblog.de (Aufsatz mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

  Demokratieprinzip versus Rechtsstaatsprinzip? UK strebt nach "democratic override” des EGMR

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 74025/01
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 74025/01
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01
• EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 74025/01
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 74025/01

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01

  However, having regard to the preparatory work to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and the interpretation of the provision in the context of the Convention as a whole, the Court has established that it guarantees individual rights, including the right to vote and to stand for election (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, pp. 22-23, §§ 46-51).

  To make this determination, the Court will rely on the legitimate aim pursued by the measure of exclusion and on the proportionality of the latter (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, p. 23, § 52).

  The Court must therefore satisfy itself that limitations do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness (see, firstly, Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, p. 23, § 52, and, more recently, Py v. France, no. 66289/01, §§ 45-47, ECHR 2005-I).

• EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 31981/96

  HILBE contre le LIECHTENSTEIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01

  For example, the imposition of a minimum age may be envisaged with a view to ensuring the maturity of those participating in the electoral process or, in some circumstances, eligibility may be geared to criteria, such as residence, to identify those with sufficiently continuous or close links to, or a stake in, the country concerned (see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI, and Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 56, ECHR 2004-X).

  In the light of such considerations, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 cannot be considered to preclude restrictions on the right to vote that are of a general character, provided that they are not arbitrary and do not affect "the free expression of the opinion of the people", examples being conditions concerning age, nationality, or residence (see, for example, Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI, and Py, cited above).

• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 46295/99

  STAFFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01

  In a case such as the present one, where Contracting States have adopted a number of different ways of addressing the question of the right of convicted prisoners to vote, the Court must confine itself to determining whether the restriction affecting all convicted prisoners in custody exceeds any acceptable margin of appreciation, leaving it to the legislature to decide on the choice of means for securing the rights guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, the cases concerning procedures governing the continued detention of life prisoners, where Court case-law and domestic legislation have evolved progressively: Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 190-A; Singh v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1996, Reports 1996-I; and Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, ECHR 2002-IV).

  It has been part of the Court's reasoning in some cases in recent years to emphasise its role in developing human rights and the necessity to maintain a dynamic and evolutive approach in its interpretation of the Convention and its Protocols in order to make reforms or improvements possible (see, for example, Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, § 68, ECHR 2002-IV, and Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 74, ECHR 2002-VI).

 
• EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95

  Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01

  It has been part of the Court's reasoning in some cases in recent years to emphasise its role in developing human rights and the necessity to maintain a dynamic and evolutive approach in its interpretation of the Convention and its Protocols in order to make reforms or improvements possible (see, for example, Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, § 68, ECHR 2002-IV, and Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 74, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EKMR, 18.09.1961 - 1028/61

  A.D.Q. c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01

  This is also why the Commission in its early case-law did not consider that the Article granted individual rights (see X v. Germany, no. 530/59, decision of 4 January 1960, Collection 2, and X v. Belgium, no. 1028/61, decision of 18 September 1961, Collection 6, p. 78).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01

  It is primarily for the State concerned to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the means to be used in its domestic legal order in order to discharge its obligation under Article 46 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 202, ECHR 2004-II, and Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01

  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, and 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, 12 November 2002, and 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, §§ 126-45, ECHR 2003-XII, and T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission's report of 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84); the right to practise their religion (Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, §§ 167-71, ECHR 2003-V); the right of effective access to a lawyer or to a court for the purposes of Article 6 (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, and 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's report of 13 December 1979, DR 24, p. 5, and Draper v. the United Kingdom, no. 8186/78, Commission's report of 10 July 1980, DR 24, p. 72).
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01

  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, and 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, 12 November 2002, and 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, §§ 126-45, ECHR 2003-XII, and T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission's report of 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84); the right to practise their religion (Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, §§ 167-71, ECHR 2003-V); the right of effective access to a lawyer or to a court for the purposes of Article 6 (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, and 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's report of 13 December 1979, DR 24, p. 5, and Draper v. the United Kingdom, no. 8186/78, Commission's report of 10 July 1980, DR 24, p. 72).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01

  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, and 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, 12 November 2002, and 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, §§ 126-45, ECHR 2003-XII, and T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8231/78, Commission's report of 12 October 1983, DR 49, p. 5, §§ 44-84); the right to practise their religion (Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, §§ 167-71, ECHR 2003-V); the right of effective access to a lawyer or to a court for the purposes of Article 6 (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, and 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's report of 13 December 1979, DR 24, p. 5, and Draper v. the United Kingdom, no. 8186/78, Commission's report of 10 July 1980, DR 24, p. 72).
• EGMR, 25.10.1990 - 11787/85

  THYNNE, WILSON AND GUNNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01

  In a case such as the present one, where Contracting States have adopted a number of different ways of addressing the question of the right of convicted prisoners to vote, the Court must confine itself to determining whether the restriction affecting all convicted prisoners in custody exceeds any acceptable margin of appreciation, leaving it to the legislature to decide on the choice of means for securing the rights guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, the cases concerning procedures governing the continued detention of life prisoners, where Court case-law and domestic legislation have evolved progressively: Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 190-A; Singh v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1996, Reports 1996-I; and Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 46726/99

  PODKOLZINA c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 17707/02

  MELNITCHENKO c. UKRAINE
• EKMR, 06.03.1982 - 8231/78

  X. v. the UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 13.10.1977 - 7114/75

  HAMER c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EKMR, 08.10.1982 - 9054/80

  A. v. ROYAUME-UNI

• BVerfG, 29.01.2019 - 2 BvC 62/14

  Wahlrechtsausschlüsse für Betreute in allen Angelegenheiten und wegen …

  Allerdings müsse eine Beschränkung des Wahlrechts einem legitimen Ziel dienen und dem Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit entsprechen (vgl. EGMR, Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, Urteil vom 2. März 1987, Nr. 9267/81, § 52; EGMR , Hirst v. The United Kingdom , Urteil vom 6. Oktober 2005, Nr. 74025/01, § 62).

  Werde allen Strafgefangenen unterschiedslos das Wahlrecht entzogen, stelle dies eine allgemeine, automatische und wahllose Einschränkung des Wahlrechts dar, die den Gestaltungsspielraum der Vertragsstaaten überschreite und daher mit Art. 3 EMRKZusProt nicht vereinbar sei (vgl. EGMR , Hirst v. The United Kingdom , Urteil vom 6. Oktober 2005, Nr. 74025/01, § 82; s. auch EGMR, Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, Urteil vom 4. Juli 2013, Nr. 11157/04 und 15162/05, §§ 93 ff.).

• EGMR, 06.01.2011 - 34932/04

  Rolandas Paksas

  Elle a ainsi examiné au fond un certain nombre de requêtes dans lesquelles étaient en cause des dispositions légales qui n'avaient pas donné lieu à des décisions individuelles visant les requérants mais étaient génératrices d'une situation continue, et qui avaient été introduites plus de six mois après l'entrée en vigueur de ces dispositions (voir, par exemple, les arrêts Hirst c. Royaume-Uni (no 2) [GC], du 6 octobre 2005, no 74025/01, CEDH 2005-IX, et Sejdic et Finci c. Bosnie-Herzégovine [GC], du 22 décembre 2009, nos 27996/06 et 34836/06, CEDH 2009-..).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.04.2006 - C-145/04

  GENERALANWALT ANTONIO TIZZANO TRÄGT SEINE SCHLUSSANTRÄGE IN ZWEI RECHTSSACHEN …

  19 - EGMR, Urteil vom 2. März 1987, Mathieu-Mohin und Clerfayt/Belgien, Serie A Nr. 11, S. 22 f., § 51, und EGMR, Urteil vom 6. Oktober 2005, Hirst/Vereinigtes Königreich (Nr. 2), Nr. 74025/01, § 59. Nichtamtliche Übersetzung.