Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHINDLER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 14, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-general (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Vote) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHINDLER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - [Deutsche Übersetzung] by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-general (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Vote)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
• juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)

  Kein Wahlrecht für EU-Bürger mit langjährigem Auslandswohnsitz

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SHINDLER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 30158/06

  DOYLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 19840/09

  The court found that decisions of this Court upholding residence rules were "highly material" (referring to Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI; Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 56, ECHR 2004-X; and Doyle v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30158/06, 6 February 2007).

  More recently, the Court has taken the view that having to satisfy a residence or length-of-residence requirement in order to have or exercise the right to vote in elections is not, in principle, an arbitrary restriction of the right to vote and is therefore not incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see Doyle v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30158/06, 6 February 2007).".

• EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 42326/98

  Schutz des Rechts auf Achtung des Privatlebens und Familienlebens; Möglichkeit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 19840/09

  These two proprio motu steps in the analysis appear to lead the majority to have unnecessary recourse to the tool of the margin of appreciation in their reasoning, rather than relying on the elaborated concept of "implied limitations" under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. As rightly pointed out by Judge Rozakis in his concurring opinion in the case of Odièvre v. France ([GC], no. 42326/98, ECHR 2003-III), "when... the Court has in its hands an abundance of elements leading to the conclusion that the test of necessity is satisfied by itself... reference to the margin of appreciation should be duly confined to a subsidiary role".
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 19840/09

  Despite its general formulation, it implies individual rights, including the right to vote and the right to stand for election (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, §§ 47 and 51, Series A no. 113; and Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos, cited above, § 63).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

  NORRIS c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 19840/09

  Given the nature of the complaint and the terms of the primary legislation, the applicant can claim to be a victim despite the absence of an individual measure of implementation in his case (see Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, §§ 31-34, Series A no. 142; and Burden, cited above, § 34).
• EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 31981/96

  HILBE contre le LIECHTENSTEIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 19840/09

  The court found that decisions of this Court upholding residence rules were "highly material" (referring to Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI; Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 56, ECHR 2004-X; and Doyle v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30158/06, 6 February 2007).
• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06

  AMATO GAUCI v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 19840/09

  That the applicant may personally have preserved a high level of contact with the United Kingdom and have detailed knowledge of that country's day-to-day problems and be affected by some of them does not render the imposition of the fifteen-year rule disproportionate: while they require close scrutiny, general measures which do not allow for discretion in their application may nonetheless be compatible with the Convention (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 68, Series A no. 98; Twizell v. the United Kingdom, no. 25379/02, § 24, 20 May 2008; Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 71, 15 September 2009; Allen and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 5591/07, § 66, 6 October 2009; Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos, cited above, § 79; and paragraph 103 above.
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 5591/07

  ALLEN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 19840/09

  That the applicant may personally have preserved a high level of contact with the United Kingdom and have detailed knowledge of that country's day-to-day problems and be affected by some of them does not render the imposition of the fifteen-year rule disproportionate: while they require close scrutiny, general measures which do not allow for discretion in their application may nonetheless be compatible with the Convention (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 68, Series A no. 98; Twizell v. the United Kingdom, no. 25379/02, § 24, 20 May 2008; Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 71, 15 September 2009; Allen and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 5591/07, § 66, 6 October 2009; Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos, cited above, § 79; and paragraph 103 above.
• EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 25379/02

  TWIZELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 19840/09

  That the applicant may personally have preserved a high level of contact with the United Kingdom and have detailed knowledge of that country's day-to-day problems and be affected by some of them does not render the imposition of the fifteen-year rule disproportionate: while they require close scrutiny, general measures which do not allow for discretion in their application may nonetheless be compatible with the Convention (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 68, Series A no. 98; Twizell v. the United Kingdom, no. 25379/02, § 24, 20 May 2008; Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 71, 15 September 2009; Allen and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 5591/07, § 66, 6 October 2009; Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos, cited above, § 79; and paragraph 103 above.

• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 28881/07

  ORAN c. TURQUIE

  La Cour note d'abord que la situation du requérant se distingue par rapport à d'autres affaires dans lesquelles elle a examiné l'impossibilité pour les ressortissants nationaux expatriés de voter aux élections législatives depuis leur lieu actuel de résidence et la question de savoir s'il existe une l'obligation pour les États parties, au regard de l'article 3 du Protocole additionnel, d'adopter une loi permettant le vote de tels expatriés depuis l'étranger (Sitaropoulos et Giakoumopoulos [GC], précité, § 70, et Shindler c. Royaume-Uni, no 19840/09, § 109, 7 mai 2013).

  Nous sommes conscients du fait que l'exercice du droit de vote par des électeurs vivant à l'étranger pose des défis particuliers (voir Shindler c. Royaume-Uni, no 19840/09, § 114, 7 mai 2013).

• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 28882/07

  TIMURHAN c. TURQUIE

  La Cour se réfère à l'aperçu du droit et pratique international figurant dans les arrêts Sitaropoulos et Giakoumopoulos c. Grèce [GC] (no 42202/07, §§ 21-45, CEDH 2012), Shindler c. Royaume-Uni (no 19840/09, §§ 37-76, 7 mai 2013) et à celui du droit et pratique interne figurant dans l'arrêt Oran c. Turquie (nos 28881/07 et 37920/07, §§ 17-25, 15 avril 2014).

  La Cour se réfère aux principes fondamentaux qui se dégagent de sa jurisprudence relative à l'article 3 du Protocole no 1, en particulier pour ce qui est des modalités de son exercice par les ressortissants nationaux expatriés, dans les affaires Sitaropoulos et Giakoumopoulos, précité, §§ 63-68, CEDH 2012, et Shindler c. Royaume-Uni (no 19840/09, §§ 99-106, 7 mai 2013).